Gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia in adults

Microvascular decompression for intermediate nerve neuralgia: a case report and literature review

Intermediate nerve neuralgia (INN) is a rare craniofacial pain syndrome. The diagnosis of INN is challenging because of the complex ear sensory innervation that results in a clinical overlap with both trigeminal neuralgia (TN) and glossopharyngeal neuralgia (GPN). A 76-year-old woman with a remarkable medical history presented with right otalgia and mandibular pain for 7 years. Neurological examination revealed a diminished sensation in the distribution of the intermediate nerve (IN). Magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated an impression of the anterior inferior cerebellar artery (AICA) on the facial-vestibulocochlear nerve complex (VII/VIII complex). The patient underwent microvascular decompression (MVD) after long-term oral medication. We confirmed that the responsible vessel was close to the VII/VIII complex and isolated the vessel under the microscope via a right-sided suboccipital retrosigmoid approach. The patient's otalgia and mandibular pain disappeared after the operation. There were no additional neurological deficits. In conclusion, MVD is a safe and feasible option for patients with INN who fail to respond to adequate pharmacotherapy.

Neuropathic pain; what we know and what we should do about it

Neuropathic pain can result from injury to, or disease of the nervous system. It is notoriously difficult to treat. Peripheral nerve injury promotes Schwann cell activation and invasion of immunocompetent cells into the site of injury, spinal cord and higher sensory structures such as thalamus and cingulate and sensory cortices. Various cytokines, chemokines, growth factors, monoamines and neuropeptides effect two-way signalling between neurons, glia and immune cells. This promotes sustained hyperexcitability and spontaneous activity in primary afferents that is crucial for onset and persistence of pain as well as misprocessing of sensory information in the spinal cord and supraspinal structures. Much of the current understanding of pain aetiology and identification of drug targets derives from studies of the consequences of peripheral nerve injury in rodent models. Although a vast amount of information has been forthcoming, the translation of this information into the clinical arena has been minimal. Few, if any, major therapeutic approaches have appeared since the mid 1990's. This may reflect failure to recognise differences in pain processing in males vs. females, differences in cellular responses to different types of injury and differences in pain processing in humans vs. animals. Basic science and clinical approaches which seek to bridge this knowledge gap include better assessment of pain in animal models, use of pain models which better emulate human disease, and stratification of human pain phenotypes according to quantitative assessment of signs and symptoms of disease. This can lead to more personalized and effective treatments for individual patients. Significance statement: There is an urgent need to find new treatments for neuropathic pain. Although classical animal models have revealed essential features of pain aetiology such as peripheral and central sensitization and some of the molecular and cellular mechanisms involved, they do not adequately model the multiplicity of disease states or injuries that may bring forth neuropathic pain in the clinic. This review seeks to integrate information from the multiplicity of disciplines that seek to understand neuropathic pain; including immunology, cell biology, electrophysiology and biophysics, anatomy, cell biology, neurology, molecular biology, pharmacology and behavioral science. Beyond this, it underlines ongoing refinements in basic science and clinical practice that will engender improved approaches to pain management.

Perioperative Management of Painful Phantom Limb Syndrome: A Narrative Review and Clinical Management Proposal

Objective: Painful Phantom Limb Syndrome (PPLS) occurs in 50 to 80% of patients undergoing amputation, having a great impact on quality of life, productivity and psychosocial sphere. The objective of this review is to summarize the pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies, surgical optimization, and provide a multidisciplinary approach aimed at reducing the incidence of chronic pain associated with PPLS in patients undergoing limb amputation.Methods: A narrative review was carried out using Medline, Pubmed, Proquest, LILACS and Cochrane, searching for articles between 2000 and 2021. Articles describing the epidemiology, pathophysiological considerations, and current treatments were selected after a screening process.Results: A multidisciplinary and multimodal approach is required in PPLS, and should include the use of regional techniques, and adjuvants such as NSAIDs, ketamine, lidocaine and gabapentinoids. In addition, an evaluation and continuous management of risk factors for chronic pain in conjunction with the surgical team is necessary.Conclusion: The current literature does not support that a single technique is effective in the prevention of PPLS. However, adequate acute pain control, rehabilitation and early restoration of the body scheme under a multidisciplinary and multimodal approach have shown benefit in the acute setting.

Optimal pharmacotherapy pathway in adults with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain: the OPTION-DM RCT

BACKGROUND

The mainstay of treatment for diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain is pharmacotherapy, but the current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline is not based on robust evidence, as the treatments and their combinations have not been directly compared.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the most clinically beneficial, cost-effective and tolerated treatment pathway for diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain.

DESIGN

A randomised crossover trial with health economic analysis.

SETTING

Twenty-one secondary care centres in the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain with a 7-day average self-rated pain score of ≥ 4 points (Numeric Rating Scale 0-10).

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomised to three commonly used treatment pathways: (1) amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin, (2) duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin and (3) pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline. Participants and research teams were blinded to treatment allocation, using over-encapsulated capsules and matching placebos. Site pharmacists were unblinded.

OUTCOMES

The primary outcome was the difference in 7-day average 24-hour Numeric Rating Scale score between pathways, measured during the final week of each pathway. Secondary end points included 7-day average daily Numeric Rating Scale pain score at week 6 between monotherapies, quality of life (Short Form questionnaire-36 items), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale score, the proportion of patients achieving 30% and 50% pain reduction, Brief Pain Inventory - Modified Short Form items scores, Insomnia Severity Index score, Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory score, tolerability (scale 0-10), Patient Global Impression of Change score at week 16 and patients' preferred treatment pathway at week 50. Adverse events and serious adverse events were recorded. A within-trial cost-utility analysis was carried out to compare treatment pathways using incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-years from an NHS and social care perspective.

RESULTS

A total of 140 participants were randomised from 13 UK centres, 130 of whom were included in the analyses. Pain score at week 16 was similar between the arms, with a mean difference of -0.1 points (98.3% confidence interval -0.5 to 0.3 points) for duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin compared with amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin, a mean difference of -0.1 points (98.3% confidence interval -0.5 to 0.3 points) for pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline compared with amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin and a mean difference of 0.0 points (98.3% confidence interval -0.4 to 0.4 points) for pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline compared with duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin. Results for tolerability, discontinuation and quality of life were similar. The adverse events were predictable for each drug. Combination therapy (weeks 6-16) was associated with a further reduction in Numeric Rating Scale pain score (mean 1.0 points, 98.3% confidence interval 0.6 to 1.3 points) compared with those who remained on monotherapy (mean 0.2 points, 98.3% confidence interval -0.1 to 0.5 points). The pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline pathway had the fewest monotherapy discontinuations due to treatment-emergent adverse events and was most commonly preferred (most commonly preferred by participants: amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin, 24%; duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin, 33%; pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline, 43%; p = 0.26). No single pathway was superior in cost-effectiveness. The incremental gains in quality-adjusted life-years were small for each pathway comparison [amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin -0.002 (95% confidence interval -0.011 to 0.007) quality-adjusted life-years, amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline -0.006 (95% confidence interval -0.002 to 0.014) quality-adjusted life-years and duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline 0.007 (95% confidence interval 0.0002 to 0.015) quality-adjusted life-years] and incremental costs over 16 weeks were similar [amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin -£113 (95% confidence interval -£381 to £90), amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline £155 (95% confidence interval -£37 to £625) and duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline £141 (95% confidence interval -£13 to £398)].

LIMITATIONS

Although there was no placebo arm, there is strong evidence for the use of each study medication from randomised placebo-controlled trials. The addition of a placebo arm would have increased the duration of this already long and demanding trial and it was not felt to be ethically justifiable.

FUTURE WORK

Future research should explore (1) variations in diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain management at the practice level, (2) how OPTION-DM (Optimal Pathway for TreatIng neurOpathic paiN in Diabetes Mellitus) trial findings can be best implemented, (3) why some patients respond to a particular drug and others do not and (4) what options there are for further treatments for those patients on combination treatment with inadequate pain relief.

CONCLUSIONS

The three treatment pathways appear to give comparable patient outcomes at similar costs, suggesting that the optimal treatment may depend on patients' preference in terms of side effects.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial is registered as ISRCTN17545443 and EudraCT 2016-003146-89.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme, and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 39. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Novel Therapies for Centralized Pain: a Brief Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Centralized pain presents a complex pathology that many classic pharmacological agents for pain have not been able to sufficiently treat. To date, there are no clear guidelines for preferred treatment methods or comprehensive protocol that addresses confounding factors in this population. We sought to summarize the current field of knowledge around centrally mediated pain and to understand promising novel therapies.

RECENT FINDINGS

Many treatments currently used address not only the centralized pain phenotypem but the impact of central sensitization and the common comorbidities that reside within this population. Some novel therapies with promising evidence include the following: low-dose naltrexone, IV ketamine, acupuncture, aerobic activity, and laser therapy. Non-interventional treatment options include aerobic exercise, cognitive-behavioral therapy, mind-body therapies, virtual reality, and patient education on disease expectations. Much of the literature further emphasizes the importance of patient-level predictors, including factors like pain catastrophizing and social history, on treatment compliance and reported pain relief. We found that there are many potential treatment options for patients with centralized pain, particularly those that can be used as adjunct or combination therapies. The introduction of new approaches should occur in a carefully controlled, titrated manner to avoid exacerbation of pain symptoms. This is successfully conducted through patient-physician communication as this is a highly complex and personalized pain category. Our examination shows that while physicians have many options with proven success, there is a need for studies with longitudinal and larger patient populations to better articulate treatment guidelines.

Topical clonidine for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Clonidine is a presynaptic alpha-2-adrenergic receptor agonist that has been used for many years to treat hypertension and other conditions, including chronic pain. Adverse events associated with systemic use of the drug have limited its application. Topical use of drugs has been gaining interest since the beginning of the century, as it may limit adverse events without loss of analgesic efficacy. Topical clonidine (TC) formulations have been investigated for almost 20 years in clinical trials. This is an update of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 8, 2015.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess the analgesic efficacy and safety of TC compared with placebo or other drugs in adults aged 18 years or above with chronic neuropathic pain.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE (Ovid), and Embase (Ovid) databases, and reference lists of retrieved papers and trial registries. We also contacted experts in the field. The most recent search was performed on 27 October 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind studies of at least two weeks' duration comparing TC versus placebo or other active treatment in adults with chronic neuropathic pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened references for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion or by consulting a third review author if necessary. Where required, we contacted trial authors to request additional information. We presented pooled estimates for dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and continuous outcomes as mean differences (MDs) with P values. We used Review Manager Web software to perform the meta-analyses. We used a fixed-effect model if we considered heterogeneity as not important; otherwise, we used a random-effects model.  The review primary outcomes were: participant-reported pain relief of 50% or greater; participant-reported pain relief of 30% or greater; much or very much improved on Patient Global Impression of Change scale (PGIC); and very much improved on PGIC. Secondary outcomes included withdrawals due to adverse events; participants experiencing at least one adverse event; and withdrawals due to lack of efficacy. All outcomes were measured at the longest follow-up period. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE and created two summary of findings tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies in the review (two new in this update), with a total of 743 participants with painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN). TC (0.1% or 0.2%) was applied in gel form to the painful area two to three times daily. The double-blind treatment phase of three studies lasted 8 weeks to 85 days and compared TC versus placebo. In the fourth study, the double-blind treatment phase lasted 12 weeks and compared TC versus topical capsaicin. We assessed the studies as at unclear or high risk of bias for most domains; all studies were at unclear risk of bias for allocation concealment and blinding of outcome assessment; one study was at high risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel; two studies were at high risk of attrition bias; and three studies were at high risk of bias due to notable funding concerns. We judged the certainty of evidence (GRADE) to be moderate to very low, downgrading for study limitations, imprecision of results, and publication bias. TC compared to placebo There was no evidence of a difference in number of participants with participant-reported pain relief of 50% or greater during longest follow-up period (12 weeks) between groups (risk ratio (RR) 1.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.86; 179 participants; 1 study; low certainty evidence). However, the number of participants with participant-reported pain relief of 30% or greater during longest follow-up period (8 to 12 weeks) was higher in the TC group compared with placebo (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.77; 344 participants; 2 studies, very low certainty evidence). The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) for this comparison was 8.33 (95% CI 4.3 to 50.0). Also, there was no evidence of a difference between groups for the outcomes much or very much improved on the PGIC during longest follow-up period (12 weeks) or very much improved on PGIC during the longest follow-up period (12 weeks) (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.49 and RR 1.82, 95% CI 0.89 to 3.72, respectively; 179 participants; 1 study; low certainty evidence). We observed no evidence of a difference between groups in withdrawals due to adverse events and withdrawals due to lack of efficacy during the longest follow-up period (12 weeks) (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.18 and RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.92, respectively; 179 participants; 1 study; low certainty evidence) and participants experiencing at least one adverse event during longest follow-up period (12 weeks) (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.14 to 3.05; 344 participants; 2 studies; low certainty evidence).  TC compared to active comparator There was no evidence of a difference in the number of participants with participant-reported pain relief of 50% or greater during longest follow-up period (12 weeks) between groups (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.0; 139 participants; 1 study; low certainty evidence). Other outcomes were not reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This is an update of a review published in 2015, for which our conclusions remain unchanged. Topical clonidine may provide some benefit to adults with painful diabetic neuropathy; however, the evidence is very uncertain. Additional trials are needed to assess TC in other neuropathic pain conditions and to determine whether it is possible to predict who or which groups of people will benefit from TC.

Peripheral Voltage-Gated Cation Channels in Neuropathic Pain and Their Potential as Therapeutic Targets

The persistence of increased excitability and spontaneous activity in injured peripheral neurons is imperative for the development and persistence of many forms of neuropathic pain. This aberrant activity involves increased activity and/or expression of voltage-gated Na⁺ and Ca²⁺ channels and hyperpolarization activated cyclic nucleotide gated (HCN) channels as well as decreased function of K⁺ channels. Because they display limited central side effects, peripherally restricted Na⁺ and Ca²⁺ channel blockers and K⁺ channel activators offer potential therapeutic approaches to pain management. This review outlines the current status and future therapeutic promise of peripherally acting channel modulators. Selective blockers of Na_v1.3, Na_v1.7, Na_v1.8, Ca_v3.2, and HCN2 and activators of K_v7.2 abrogate signs of neuropathic pain in animal models. Unfortunately, their performance in the clinic has been disappointing; some substances fail to meet therapeutic end points whereas others produce dose-limiting side effects. Despite this, peripheral voltage-gated cation channels retain their promise as therapeutic targets. The way forward may include (i) further structural refinement of K⁺ channel activators such as retigabine and ASP0819 to improve selectivity and limit toxicity; use or modification of Na⁺ channel blockers such as vixotrigine, PF-05089771, A803467, PF-01247324, VX-150 or arachnid toxins such as Tap1a; the use of Ca²⁺ channel blockers such as TTA-P2, TTA-A2, Z 944, ACT709478, and CNCB-2; (ii) improving methods for assessing “pain” as opposed to nociception in rodent models; (iii) recognizing sex differences in pain etiology; (iv) tailoring of therapeutic approaches to meet the symptoms and etiology of pain in individual patients via quantitative sensory testing and other personalized medicine approaches; (v) targeting genetic and biochemical mechanisms controlling channel expression using anti-NGF antibodies such as tanezumab or re-purposed drugs such as vorinostat, a histone methyltransferase inhibitor used in the management of T-cell lymphoma, or cercosporamide a MNK 1/2 inhibitor used in treatment of rheumatoid arthritis; (vi) combination therapy using drugs that are selective for different channel types or regulatory processes; (vii) directing preclinical validation work toward the use of human or human-derived tissue samples; and (viii) application of molecular biological approaches such as clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) technology.

Comparing pregabalin and gabapentin for persistent neuropathic pain: A protocol for a pilot N-of-1 trial series

Background

Evidence-based management of neuropathic pain is commonly ineffective due to the large variability in response between cases. Patients often have to trial several drugs before finding one that provides adequate relief, leading to increased costs and worsened outcomes. There is thus a need for tools to guide and streamline prescribing decisions in neuropathic pain. N-of-1 trials provide a potentially precise and economical method of selecting between multiple interventions in an individual patient, and merit a feasibility assessment for use in clinical pain practice.

Aims

We aim to evaluate the feasibility of N-of-1 trials to compare pregabalin and gabapentin for individual presentations of neuropathic pain.

Methods

This is a double-blinded multiple crossover study, with recruitment from existing patients at an outpatient pain clinic in New South Wales, Australia. Participants will undergo three 4-week treatment pairs, comprising 2 weeks of pregabalin (150–600 mg/day) and 2 weeks of gabapentin (900–3600 mg/day), in an individually randomised order. Intervention doses will be derived from participants’ existing treatment dose. Medications will be taken orally three times daily. The primary outcome will be pain intensity; measures will be self-reported daily in patient diaries. After completing all three cycles, participants and their physicians will be presented with the results of the trial to form an informed decision about their treatment.

Discussion

As a stable yet debilitating condition, neuropathic pain is especially amenable to an N-of-1 study design. A successful trial would represent a significant quality of life improvement for the patient, possibly extending over the course of their lifetime.

Dispensing patterns of drugs used for neuropathic pain and adherence to NeuPSIG guideline: an observational study

Background

Neuropathic pain is a common chronic ailment that can be challenging to treat because of the heterogeneity of its etiologies, symptoms, and underlying mechanisms. Drugs to treat neuropathic pain are highly prescribed; however, limited data exist on the rates and patterns of dispensing in Lebanon. This study was conducted to assess the patterns of dispensing neuropathic pain drugs and adherence to NeuPSIG guideline in the Lebanese adult population. An observational study was conducted at 30 community pharmacies over 10 months. Adults presenting to the community pharmacy with a prescription of at least one pain medication and diagnosed with a neuropathic pain disorder were interviewed using a questionnaire that included demographic characteristics of patients, comorbidities, neuropathic pain disorder type, physicians’ specialty, and the class and number of prescribed medications.

Results

A total of 360 patients diagnosed with painful neuropathy were enrolled in our study. The mean patients’ age was 50.2 years. Guideline-recommended first-line agents (serotonin–norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants, and gabapentinoids) were prescribed to 278 patients (77.2%), with pregabalin being the most used drug (60.5%), nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (46.8%), opioids (15.8%), and topical agents (5.5%). Combination treatment for neuropathic pain was prescribed to 78.3% of patients.

Conclusions

In Lebanon, neuropathic pain management comply with the international NeuPSIG guideline. Pregabalin is the most commonly used drug, and combination treatments are usually needed to alleviate neuropathic pain.

Drug Screening and Drug Repositioning as Promising Therapeutic Approaches for Spinal Muscular Atrophy Treatment

Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is the most common genetic disease affecting infants and young adults. Due to mutation/deletion of the survival motor neuron (SMN) gene, SMA is characterized by the SMN protein lack, resulting in motor neuron impairment, skeletal muscle atrophy and premature death. Even if the genetic causes of SMA are well known, many aspects of its pathogenesis remain unclear and only three drugs have been recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration (Nusinersen-Spinraza; Onasemnogene abeparvovec or AVXS-101-Zolgensma; Risdiplam-Evrysdi): although assuring remarkable results, the therapies show some important limits including high costs, still unknown long-term effects, side effects and disregarding of SMN-independent targets. Therefore, the research of new therapeutic strategies is still a hot topic in the SMA field and many efforts are spent in drug discovery. In this review, we describe two promising strategies to select effective molecules: drug screening (DS) and drug repositioning (DR). By using compounds libraries of chemical/natural compounds and/or Food and Drug Administration-approved substances, DS aims at identifying new potentially effective compounds, whereas DR at testing drugs originally designed for the treatment of other pathologies. The drastic reduction in risks, costs and time expenditure assured by these strategies make them particularly interesting, especially for those diseases for which the canonical drug discovery process would be long and expensive. Interestingly, among the identified molecules by DS/DR in the context of SMA, besides the modulators of SMN2 transcription, we highlighted a convergence of some targeted molecular cascades contributing to SMA pathology, including cell death related-pathways, mitochondria and cytoskeleton dynamics, neurotransmitter and hormone modulation.

Evaluation of a Pharmacist Managed Telephone Pain Clinic for Neuropathy Treatment

Pain is prevalent in our society, affecting more than a quarter-million U.S. adults and leading to poor patient outcomes. At the Veteran's Affairs San Diego Healthcare System (VASDHS), a Telephone Pain Clinic (TPC) was developed to improve these outcomes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of TPC in improving neuropathic pain. A retrospective cohort study was conducted at the VASDHS comparing pre- and post- self-rated Numeric Rating Scale (NRS-11), an 11-point scale from 0 to 10 with 0 equaling no pain and 10 equaling most severe pain. Patients were included if they were referred and enrolled to the TPC for neuropathic pain. They were excluded if they were co-managed by another pain provider or were referred for any other pain conditions. A total of 830 TPC patients were screened between January 2008 to December 2009 and 52 patients met criteria. Patients who participated in the clinic were found to have a significant 0.83 (p = 0.014) reduction in mean pain score from baseline (6.62, SD 1.96) to discharge (5.79, SD 2.49). At discharge, pain medications that were increased were use of serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), pregabalin, and capsaicin. Management by the TPC showed promise and trends toward reducing pain experienced by patients with diabetic neuropathy, fibromyalgia, or postherpetic neuralgia. The TPC also may be more effective in maximizing evidenced-based pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain, suggesting expertise by pharmacist clinical specialists.

Spinal P2X7R contributes to streptozotocin-induced mechanical allodynia in mice

Painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) is a diabetes mellitus complication. Unfortunately, the mechanisms underlying PDN are still poorly understood. Adenosine triphosphate (ATP)-gated P2X7 receptor (P2X7R) plays a pivotal role in non-diabetic neuropathic pain, but little is known about its effects on streptozotocin (STZ)-induced peripheral neuropathy. Here, we explored whether spinal cord P2X7R was correlated with the generation of mechanical allodynia (MA) in STZ-induced type 1 diabetic neuropathy in mice. MA was assessed by measuring paw withdrawal thresholds and western blotting. Immunohistochemistry was applied to analyze the protein expression levels and localization of P2X7R. STZ-induced mice expressed increased P2X7R in the dorsal horn of the lumbar spinal cord during MA. Mice injected intrathecally with a selective antagonist of P2X7R and P2X7R knockout (KO) mice both presented attenuated progression of MA. Double-immunofluorescent labeling demonstrated that P2X7R-positive cells were mostly co-expressed with Iba1 (a microglia marker). Our results suggest that P2X7R plays an important role in the development of MA and could be used as a cellular target for treating PDN.

CR4056, a powerful analgesic imidazoline-2 receptor ligand, inhibits the inflammation-induced PKCε phosphorylation and membrane translocation in sensory neurons

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

CR4056 is a first-in-class imidazoline-2 (I₂ ) receptor ligand characterized by potent analgesic activity in different experimental animal models of pain. In a recent phase II clinical trial, CR4056 effectively reduced pain in patients with knee osteoarthritis. In the present study, we investigated the effects of CR4056 on PKCε translocation in vitro and on PKCε activation in vivo in dorsal root ganglia (DRG) neurons.

EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

Effects of CR4056 on bradykinin-induced PKCε translocation were studied in rat sensory neurons by immunocytochemistry. PKCε activation was investigated by immunohistochemistry analysis of DRG from complete Freund's adjuvant-treated animals developing local hyperalgesia. The analgesic activity of CR4056 was tested on the same animals.

KEY RESULTS

CR4056 inhibited PKCε translocation with very rapid and long-lasting activity. CR4056 decreased hyperalgesia and phospho-PKCε immunoreactivity in the DRG neurons innervating the inflamed paw. The effect of CR4056 on PKCε translocation was blocked by pertussis toxin, implying that the intracellular pathways involved G_i proteins. The inhibition of PKCε translocation by CR4056 was independent of the α₂ -adrenoeceptor and, surprisingly, was also independent of idazoxan-sensitive I₂ binding sites. The I₂ agonist 2BFI had no effect alone but potentiated the activity of low concentrations of CR4056.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Our results demonstrate that CR4056 shares the ability to inhibit PKCε translocation with other analgesics. Whether the inhibition of PKCε involves binding to specific subtype(s) of I₂ receptors should be further investigated. If so, this would be a new mode of action of a highly specific I₂ receptor ligand.

A Randomized Clinical Trial of Group Acupuncture for Painful Diabetic Neuropathy Among Diverse Safety Net Patients

OBJECTIVE

Existing pharmacologic approaches for painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) are limited in efficacy and have side effects. We examined the feasibility, acceptability, and effects of group acupuncture for PDN.

DESIGN AND SETTING

We randomized patients with PDN from a public safety net hospital to 1) usual care, 2) usual care plus 12 weeks of group acupuncture once weekly, or 3) usual care plus 12 weeks of group acupuncture twice weekly.

METHODS

The primary outcome was change in weekly pain intensity (daily 0-10 numerical rating scale [NRS] averaged over seven days) from baseline to week 12. We also assessed health-related quality of life and related symptoms at baseline and weeks 6, 12, and 18.

RESULTS

We enrolled 40 patients with PDN (baseline pain = 5.3). Among participants randomized to acupuncture, 92% attended at least one treatment (mean treatments = 10.1). We observed no significant differences between once- vs twice-weekly acupuncture and combined those groups for the main analyses. Compared with usual care, participants randomized to acupuncture experienced greater decreases in pain during the 12-week intervention period (between-group differences from baseline = -2.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -3.01 to -1.10), but benefits were not maintained after acupuncture ended (baseline to week 18 = -0.61, 95% CI = -1.46 to 0.24). Quality of life improved for acupuncture participants (baseline to week 12 difference = 11.79, 95% CI = 1.92 to 21.66), but group differences were not significant compared with usual care (25.58, 95% CI = -3.90 to 55.06).

CONCLUSIONS

Group acupuncture is feasible and acceptable among linguistically and racially diverse safety net patients. Findings suggest clinically relevant reduction in pain from PDN and quality of life improvements associated with acupuncture, with no differences based on frequency.

Efficacy of a Combination of N-Palmitoylethanolamide, Beta-Caryophyllene, Carnosic Acid, and Myrrh Extract on Chronic Neuropathic Pain: A Preclinical Study

Neuropathic pain (NP) is a common public health problem that poses a major challenge to basic scientists and health-care providers. NP is a complex problem with an unclear etiology and an often-inadequate response to current medications. Despite the high number of drugs available, their limited pharmacological efficacy and side effects hamper their chronic use. Thus, the search for novel treatments is a priority. In addition to pharmaceuticals, natural extracts and food supplements are often used to help treating patients with NP. One such supplement is Noxiall^®, a commercially available combination of N-Palmitoylethanolamide (PEA), beta-caryophyllene; carnosic acid and myrrh. Here, we compare the efficacy of Noxiall^® to that of the medications gabapentin and pregabalin in the NP model of chronic constriction injury (CCI) using sciatic nerve ligation in mouse. Following CCI, mice developed a significant increase in mechanical allodynia and thermal hyperalgesia. Results showed that administration of either Noxiall^®, pregabalin, or gabapentin significantly attenuated mechanical allodynia. The magnitude of the Noxiall^® effect was comparable to that of gabapentin or pregabalin. In addition, co-administration of non-effective doses of pregabalin and Noxiall^® resulted in a significant decrease in NP, suggesting an additive efficacy. Noxiall^® was efficacious also in reducing CCI-induced thermal hyperalgesia. These findings support the rationale of using natural remedies in conjunction with classical pharmacological agents to treat chronic NP.

Non-inferiority double-blind randomised controlled trial comparing gabapentin versus tramadol for the treatment of chronic neuropathic or mixed pain in children and adolescents: the GABA-1 trial-a study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Gabapentin is currently used 'off-label' in children and adolescents with chronic neuropathic pain, and reliable evidence of its effects and optimal dosing are lacking.

OBJECTIVES

The GABA-1 trial aims to compare the efficacy and safety of gabapentin liquid formulation relative to tramadol and to explore the pharmacokinetics of both drugs in the treatment of chronic, neuropathic or mixed pain in the paediatric population.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The trial is a multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised, active-controlled, non-inferiority trial. Participants aged from 3 months to <18 years of age with moderate to severe (≥4/10 in age-appropriate pain scales) chronic neuropathic or mixed pain will be recruited in 14 clinical sites in eight European countries. A total of 94 subjects will be randomised to receive gabapentin and tramadol placebo or tramadol and gabapentin placebo throughout 16-19 weeks (including 3 weeks of titration [optimisation period], 12 weeks of treatment at a stable dose [maintenance period] and 1-4 weeks of tapering [discontinuation period]). The primary objective is to assess the efficacy of gabapentin relative to tramadol for the treatment of moderate to severe chronic neuropathic or mixed pain by comparing the difference in average pain scores (assessed by age-appropriate pain scales) between intervention arms after 15 weeks of treatment. Secondary objectives include the assessment of the safety, quality of life and global satisfaction with treatment and the description of the pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic relationship of gabapentin liquid formulation and tramadol oral drops to validate the recommended paediatric doses. Only rescue pain medication by paracetamol and/or ibuprofen is allowed during the trial.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethic approval was obtained in the eight participating countries. Results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at one or more scientific conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

2014-004851-30 and NCT02722603.

TRIAL STATUS

Ongoing research study, currently recruiting.

Multicentre, double-blind, crossover trial to identify the Optimal Pathway for TreatIng neurOpathic paiN in Diabetes Mellitus (OPTION-DM): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background

The number of people with diabetes is growing rapidly. Diabetes can cause nerve damage leading to severe pain in the feet, legs and hands, which is known as diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP). In the UK, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends amitriptyline, duloxetine, pregabalin or gabapentin as initial treatment for DPNP. If this is not effective, adding one of the other drugs in combination with the first is recommended. NICE points out that these recommendations are not based on robust evidence. The OPTION-DM randomised controlled trial has been designed to address this evidence deficit, with the aims of determining the most clinically beneficial, cost-effective and tolerated treatment pathway for patients with DPNP.

Methods/design

A multicentre, double-blind, centre-stratified, multi-period crossover study with equal allocation to sequences (1:1:1:1:1:1) of treatment pathways. Three hundred and ninety-two participants will be recruited from secondary care DPNP centres in the UK. There are three treatment pathways: amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin, pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline and duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin. All participants will receive all three pathways and randomisation will determine the order in which they are received. The primary outcome is the difference between 7-day average 24-h pain scores on an 11-point NRS scale measured during the final follow-up week of the treatment pathway. Secondary outcomes for efficacy, cost-effectiveness, safety, patient-perceived tolerability and subgroup analysis will be measured at week 6 and week 16 of each pathway.

Discussion

The study includes direct comparisons of the mainstay treatment for DPNP. This novel study is designed to examine treatment pathways and capture clinically relevant outcomes which will make the results generalisable to current clinical practice. The study will also provide information on health economic outcomes and will include a subgroup study to provide information on whether patient phenotypes predict response to treatment.

Trial registration

ISRCTN17545443. Registered on 12 September 2016.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2959-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The evaluation of changes in peripheral neuropathy and quality-of-life using low-frequency electrostimulation in patients treated with chemotherapy for breast cancer: a study protocol

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a progressive, enduring, and sometimes irreversible neurotoxic symptom that occurs in 30-40% of chemotherapy-treated cancer patients. CIPN negatively affects both the patient's abilities to perform daily activities and their health-related quality of life (HRQOL) after chemotherapy treatment. Although this neuropathy has been treated with duloxetine and/or gabapentin, limited therapeutic benefits have been reported, thereby necessitating the development of an integrated approach that combines pharmacological management and complementary methods such as acupuncture and electric nerve stimulation. Therefore, this study is designed to examine the effect of a portable, low-frequency electrostimulation (ES) device on CIPN symptoms and HRQOL of female patients diagnosed with CIPN immediately after chemotherapy for breast cancer.

METHODS

This study is a single-center, randomized, placebo-controlled trial with two parallel groups and a 2-week follow-up. We will enroll 80 breast cancer patients who are newly diagnosed with CIPN after chemotherapy. Duloxetine or pregabalin will be prescribed to all participants from the initial assessment. Half of the patients will be assigned into the experimental group and the other half to the control group. The CarebandR (Piomed Inc., Seoul, Korea), a wearable wristband that generates low-frequency electrostimulation, will be administered only to the experimental group. Electrostimulation will be administered on the unilateral PC6 acupoint. A numerical rating scale will be used to assess the overall intensity of CIPN symptoms. The key secondary outcome variables include patient-reported CIPN symptom distress tested by a self-rated questionnaire, physician-rated symptom severity assessed by the Total Neuropathy Score, and HRQOL.

DISCUSSION

It is expected that the combination of a low-frequency electrostimulation device and pharmacological intervention (duloxetine or pregabalin) will produce synergistic effects in breast cancer patients with CIPN after treatment. To our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the beneficial effect of a new integrated approach for CIPN management after breast cancer treatment. The study findings can expand our knowledge and understanding of the occurrence of CIPN and the efficacy of integrated intervention efforts to ameliorate CIPN symptoms.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Research Information Service (CRIS), Republic of Korea, ID: KCT0002357 . Registered retrospectively on 13 June 2017.

Postoperative Pain Management after Impacted Third Molar Surgery with Preoperative Oral Lamotrigine, a Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Extraction of the impacted third molar is often associated with severe postoperative pains, management of which are a big challenge. Lamotrigine is a new antiepileptic drug with pre-emptive analgesic properties, which is hypothesized to alleviate postoperative pain.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of pre-operative administration of single oral 200 mg lamotrigine in reducing the postoperative pain of impacted third molar surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

In this randomized controlled trial, 100 adult patients were divided into two groups (n= 50) to receive either 200 mg oral lamotrigine or placebo 1 hour before the removal of impacted third molar. The patients were monitored for 4 hours in the recovery room and pain intensity was measured through visual analogue scale (VAS) for the next 12 hours at 30-minute intervals. The time and number of rescue analgesics used in 12 hours was also recorded.

RESULTS

Two groups were not statistically significantly different regarding the severity of postoperative pain. (p= 0.512).

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, pre-emptive administration of lamotrigine was not effective in diminishing the postoperative acute pain of impacted third molar extraction.

Therapeutic Approaches of Botulinum Toxin in Gynecology

Botulinum toxins (BoNTs) are produced by several anaerobic species of the genus Clostridium and, although they were originally considered lethal toxins, today they find their usefulness in the treatment of a wide range of pathologies in various medical specialties. Botulinum neurotoxin has been identified in seven different isoforms (BoNT-A, BoNT-B, BoNT-C, BoNT-D, BoNT-E, BoNT-F, and BoNT-G). Neurotoxigenic Clostridia can produce more than 40 different BoNT subtypes and, recently, a new BoNT serotype (BoNT-X) has been reported in some studies. BoNT-X has not been shown to actually be an active neurotoxin despite its catalytically active LC, so it should be described as a putative eighth serotype. The mechanism of action of the serotypes is similar: they inhibit the release of acetylcholine from the nerve endings but their therapeutically potency varies. Botulinum toxin type A (BoNT-A) is the most studied serotype for therapeutic purposes. Regarding the gynecological pathology, a series of studies based on the efficiency of its use in the treatment of refractory myofascial pelvic pain, vaginism, dyspareunia, vulvodynia and overactive bladder or urinary incontinence have been reported. The current study is a review of the literature regarding the efficiency of BoNT-A in the gynecological pathology and on the long and short-term effects of its administration.

CRMP2 and voltage-gated ion channels: potential roles in neuropathic pain

Neuropathic pain represents a significant and mounting burden on patients and society at large. Management of neuropathic pain, however, is both intricate and challenging, exacerbated by the limited quantity and quality of clinically available treatments. On this stage, dysfunctional voltage-gated ion channels, especially the presynaptic N-type voltage-gated calcium channel (VGCC) (Cav2.2) and the tetrodotoxin-sensitive voltage-gated sodium channel (VGSC) (Nav1.7), underlie the pathophysiology of neuropathic pain and serve as high profile therapeutic targets. Indirect regulation of these channels holds promise for the treatment of neuropathic pain. In this review, we focus on collapsin response mediator protein 2 (CRMP2), a protein with emergent roles in voltage-gated ion channel trafficking and discuss the therapeutic potential of targetting this protein.

Evidence-based pain medicine for primary care physicians

The last several decades have seen a marked increase in both the recognition and treatment of chronic pain. Unfortunately, patients frequently misunderstand both the nature of pain and the best practices for its treatment. Because primary care physicians treat the majority of chronic pain, they are ideally situated to provide evidence-based pain care. The majority of the medical evidence supports a biopsychosocial model of pain that integrates physical, emotional, social, and cultural variables. The goal of this primer is to assist primary care physicians in their understanding of pain, evaluation of the chronic pain patient, and ability to direct evidence-based care. This article will discuss the role of physical rehabilitation, pain psychology, pharmacotherapy, and procedural interventions in the treatment of chronic pain. Given the current epidemic of drug-related deaths, particular emphasis is placed on the alternatives to opioid therapy. Unfortunately, death is not the only significant complication from opioid therapy, and this article discusses many of the most common side effects. This article provides general guidelines on the most appropriate utilization of opioids with emphasis on the recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines, risk stratification, and patient monitoring. Finally, the article concludes with the critical role that a pain medicine specialist can play in the management of patients with chronic pain.

Acupuncture for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Neuropathic pain may be caused by nerve damage, and is often followed by changes to the central nervous system. Uncertainty remains regarding the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture treatments for neuropathic pain, despite a number of clinical trials being undertaken.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of acupuncture treatments for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, four Chinese databases, ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) on 14 February 2017. We also cross checked the reference lists of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with treatment duration of eight weeks or longer comparing acupuncture (either given alone or in combination with other therapies) with sham acupuncture, other active therapies, or treatment as usual, for neuropathic pain in adults. We searched for studies of acupuncture based on needle insertion and stimulation of somatic tissues for therapeutic purposes, and we excluded other methods of stimulating acupuncture points without needle insertion. We searched for studies of manual acupuncture, electroacupuncture or other acupuncture techniques used in clinical practice (such as warm needling, fire needling, etc).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcomes were pain intensity and pain relief. The secondary outcomes were any pain-related outcome indicating some improvement, withdrawals, participants experiencing any adverse event, serious adverse events and quality of life. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and for continuous outcomes we calculated the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI. We also calculated number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) where possible. We combined all data using a random-effects model and assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE to generate 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six studies involving 462 participants with chronic peripheral neuropathic pain (442 completers (251 male), mean ages 52 to 63 years). The included studies recruited 403 participants from China and 59 from the UK. Most studies included a small sample size (fewer than 50 participants per treatment arm) and all studies were at high risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel. Most studies had unclear risk of bias for sequence generation (four out of six studies), allocation concealment (five out of six) and selective reporting (all included studies). All studies investigated manual acupuncture, and we did not identify any study comparing acupuncture with treatment as usual, nor any study investigating other acupuncture techniques (such as electroacupuncture, warm needling, fire needling).One study compared acupuncture with sham acupuncture. We are uncertain if there is any difference between the two interventions on reducing pain intensity (n = 45; MD -0.4, 95% CI -1.83 to 1.03, very low-quality evidence), and neither group achieved 'no worse than mild pain' (visual analogue scale (VAS, 0-10) average score was 5.8 and 6.2 respectively in the acupuncture and sham acupuncture groups, where 0 = no pain). There was limited data on quality of life, which showed no clear difference between groups. Evidence was not available on pain relief, adverse events or other pre-defined secondary outcomes for this comparison.Three studies compared acupuncture alone versus other therapies (mecobalamin combined with nimodipine, and inositol). Acupuncture may reduce the risk of 'no clinical response' to pain than other therapies (n = 209; RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.51), however, evidence was not available for pain intensity, pain relief, adverse events or any of the other secondary outcomes.Two studies compared acupuncture combined with other active therapies (mecobalamin, and Xiaoke bitong capsule) versus other active therapies used alone. We found that the acupuncture combination group had a lower VAS score for pain intensity (n = 104; MD -1.02, 95% CI -1.09 to -0.95) and improved quality of life (n = 104; MD -2.19, 95% CI -2.39 to -1.99), than those receiving other therapy alone. However, the average VAS score of the acupuncture and control groups was 3.23 and 4.25 respectively, indicating neither group achieved 'no worse than mild pain'. Furthermore, this evidence was from a single study with high risk of bias and a very small sample size. There was no evidence on pain relief and we identified no clear differences between groups on other parameters, including 'no clinical response' to pain and withdrawals. There was no evidence on adverse events.The overall quality of evidence is very low due to study limitations (high risk of performance, detection, and attrition bias, and high risk of bias confounded by small study size) or imprecision. We have limited confidence in the effect estimate and the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimated effect.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Due to the limited data available, there is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of acupuncture for neuropathic pain in general, or for any specific neuropathic pain condition when compared with sham acupuncture or other active therapies. Five studies are still ongoing and seven studies are awaiting classification due to the unclear treatment duration, and the results of these studies may influence the current findings.

WITHDRAWN: Anticonvulsants for fibromyalgia

BACKGROUND

Fibromyalgia (FM) is a clinically well-defined chronic condition of unknown aetiology characterised by chronic widespread pain that often co-exists with sleep problems and fatigue. People often report high disability levels and poor health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Drug therapy focuses on reducing key symptoms and disability, and improving HRQoL. Anticonvulsants (antiepileptic drugs) are drugs frequently used for the treatment of chronic pain syndromes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of anticonvulsants for treating FM symptoms.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 8, 2013), MEDLINE (1966 to August 2013), PsycINFO (1966 to August 2013), SCOPUS (1980 to August 2013) and the reference lists of reviewed articles for published studies and www.clinicaltrials.gov (to August 2013) for unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled trials of any formulation of anticonvulsants used for the treatment of people with FM of any age.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted the data of all included studies and assessed the risks of bias of the studies. We resolved discrepancies by discussion.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight studies: five with pregabalin and one study each with gabapentin, lacosamide and levetiracetam. A total of 2480 people were included into anticonvulsants groups and 1099 people in placebo groups. The median therapy phase of the studies was 13 weeks. The amount and quality of evidence were insufficient to draw definite conclusions on the efficacy and safety of gabapentin, lacosamide and levetiracetam in FM. The amount and quality of evidence was sufficient to draw definite conclusions on the efficacy and safety of pregabalin in FM. Therefore, we focused on our interpretation of the evidence for pregabalin due to our greater certainty about its effects and its greater relevance to clinical practice. All pregabalin studies had a low risk of bias. Reporting a 50% or greater reduction in pain was more frequent with pregabalin use than with a placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.59; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.33 to 1.90; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 12; 95% CI 9 to 21). The number of people who reported being 'much' or 'very much' improved was higher with pregabalin than with placebo (RR 1.38; 95% CI 1.23 to 1.55; NNTB 9; 95% CI 7 to 15). Pregabalin did not substantially reduce fatigue (SMD -0.17; 95% CI -0.25 to -0.09; 2.7% absolute improvement on a 1 to 50 scale) compared with placebo. Pregabalin had a small benefit over placebo in reducing sleep problems by 6.2% fewer points on a scale of 0 to 100 (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.35; 95% CI -0.43 to -0.27). The dropout rate due to adverse events was higher with pregabalin use than with placebo use (RR 1.68; 95% CI 1.36 to 2.07; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 13; 95% CI 9 to 23). There was no significant difference in serious adverse events between pregabalin and placebo use (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.71 to 1.49). Dizziness was reported as an adverse event more frequently with pregabalin use than with placebo use (RR 3.77; 95% CI 3.06 to 4.63; NNTH 4; 95% CI 3 to 5).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The anticonvulsant, pregabalin, demonstrated a small benefit over placebo in reducing pain and sleep problems. Pregabalin use was shown not to substantially reduce fatigue compared with placebo. Study dropout rates due to adverse events were higher with pregabalin use compared with placebo. Dizziness was a particularly frequent adverse event seen with pregabalin use. At the time of writing this review, pregabalin is the only anticonvulsant drug approved for treating FM in the US and in 25 other non-European countries. However, pregabalin has not been approved for treating FM in Europe. The amount and quality of evidence were insufficient to draw definite conclusions on the efficacy and safety of gabapentin, lacosamide and levetiracetam in FM.

Complex Regional Pain Syndrome following an Episode of Herpes Zoster: A Case Report

INTRODUCTION

Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is characterized by searing pain, hyperalgesia, edema, allodynia, and skin changes. CRPS may be difficult to diagnose and to treat given poorly understood mechanisms as well as its presentation of symptoms that may mimic common conditions such as joint stiffness in this condition as well as rheumatoid arthritis.

CASE REPORT

A 71-year-old female presented to our clinic post shingles of the right upper extremity. We diagnosed her with CRPS based on the Budapest diagnostic criteria and the clinical findings of pain and decreased the range of motion along with edema, hypersensitivity, discoloration and allodynia of the right thumb and index finger. She was treated with vitamin C as well as gabapentin and physical therapy. The patient was unable to go consistently to physical therapy due to insurance limitations, and we found no clinical benefit of vitamin C in reducing her symptoms. She was lost to follow-up during her treatment but re-emerged at 21 months. At that time she reported, she was largely unchanged in regards to her right-hand symptoms but did believe the gabapentin was helpful and still continued to take 300 mg daily.

CONCLUSION

This case report highlights the usefulness of the Budapest diagnostic criteria to make the diagnosis of CRPS when associated with shingles, which can cause long-term pain and mimic some findings. Prompt diagnosis is important, as recovery typically extends beyond 6 months; our patient still reported continued symptoms at 21 months post initial presentation. Our primary treatment plan was physical therapy, which she discontinued due to insurance limitations. We recommend that patients, physicians, and third-party payers work together to extend access to physical therapy. More investigation is warranted regarding symptomatic treatment, as we found limited clinical benefit of gabapentin and vitamin C.

Association of Alterations in Gray Matter Volume With Reduced Evoked-Pain Connectivity Following Short-Term Administration of Pregabalin in Patients With Fibromyalgia

OBJECTIVE

Pregabalin (PGB) is an α2 δ calcium-channel subunit ligand that has previously been shown to reduce chronic pain in multiple conditions. Preclinical studies indicate that PGB may down-regulate brain glutamate release while also inhibiting astrocyte induction of glutamatergic synapse formation, and recent clinical findings support the notion that PGB modulates glutamatergic activity and functional brain connectivity in order to produce analgesia. The present study was undertaken to examine concurrent changes in brain gray matter volume (GMV) or evoked-pain connectivity in humans receiving PGB.

METHODS

Sixteen female fibromyalgia patients participated in a randomized double-blind 2-period crossover study of PGB versus placebo. Before and after each period, patients underwent high-resolution structural and evoked pressure-pain functional brain imaging. GMV was analyzed using voxel-based morphometry, and functional connectivity during evoked pressure-pain was assessed.

RESULTS

PGB administration significantly reduced GMV within the posterior insula bilaterally, whereas there were no significant changes in insular GMV following placebo treatment. GMV reductions in the medial frontal gyrus were also observed when comparing PGB versus placebo treatment, and were associated with reduced clinical pain. These reductions in insular GMV were associated with concomitant reductions in connectivity to the default mode network, which was also associated with reduced clinical pain.

CONCLUSION

Short-term PGB treatment altered brain structure and evoked-pain connectivity, and these decreases were associated with reduced clinical pain. We speculate that these fairly rapid changes in GMV may be related to brain neuroplasticity. It is unknown whether these effects are generalizable to other chronic pain states.

A clinical perspective on a pain neuroscience education approach to manual therapy

In recent years, there has been an increased interest in pain neuroscience education (PNE) in physical therapy. There is growing evidence for the efficacy of PNE to decrease pain, disability, fear-avoidance, pain catastrophization, limited movement, and health care utilization in people struggling with pain. PNE teaches people in pain more about the biology and physiology of their pain experience including processes such as central sensitization, peripheral sensitization, allodynia, inhibition, facilitation, neuroplasticity and more. PNE's neurobiological model often finds itself at odds with traditional biomedical models used in physical therapy. Traditional biomedical models, focusing on anatomy, pathoanatomy, and biomechanics have been shown to have limited efficacy in helping people understand their pain, especially chronic pain, and may in fact even increase a person's pain experience by increasing fear-avoidance and pain catastrophization. An area of physical therapy where the biomedical model is used a lot is manual therapy. This contrast between PNE and manual therapy has seemingly polarized followers from each approach to see PNE as a 'hands-off' approach even having clinicians categorize patients as either in need of receiving PNE (with no hands-on), or hands-on with no PNE. In this paper, we explore the notion of PNE and manual therapy co-existing. PNE research has shown to have immediate effects of various clinical signs and symptoms associated with central sensitization. Using a model of sensitization (innocuous, noxious, and allodynia), we argue that PNE can be used in a manual therapy model, especially treating someone where the nervous system has become increasingly hypervigilant. Level of Evidence: VII.

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.

Gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Gabapentin is commonly used to treat neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage). This review updates a review published in 2014, and previous reviews published in 2011, 2005 and 2000.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of gabapentin in chronic neuropathic pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update we searched CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase for randomised controlled trials from January 2014 to January 2017. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and online clinical trials registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

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). We performed a pooled analysis for any substantial or moderate benefit. 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). We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four new studies (530 participants), and excluded three previously included studies (126 participants). In all, 37 studies provided information on 5914 participants. Most studies used oral gabapentin or gabapentin encarbil at doses of 1200 mg or more daily in different neuropathic pain conditions, predominantly postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy. Study duration was typically four to 12 weeks. Not all studies reported important outcomes of interest. High risk of bias occurred mainly due to small size (especially in cross-over studies), and handling of data after study withdrawal.In postherpetic neuralgia, more participants (32%) had substantial benefit (at least 50% pain relief or PGIC very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (17%) (RR 1.8 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.1); NNT 6.7 (5.4 to 8.7); 8 studies, 2260 participants, moderate-quality evidence). More participants (46%) had moderate benefit (at least 30% pain relief or PGIC much or very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (25%) (RR 1.8 (95% CI 1.6 to 2.0); NNT 4.8 (4.1 to 6.0); 8 studies, 2260 participants, moderate-quality evidence).In painful diabetic neuropathy, more participants (38%) had substantial benefit (at least 50% pain relief or PGIC very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (21%) (RR 1.9 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.3); NNT 5.9 (4.6 to 8.3); 6 studies, 1277 participants, moderate-quality evidence). More participants (52%) had moderate benefit (at least 30% pain relief or PGIC much or very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (37%) (RR 1.4 (95% CI 1.3 to 1.6); NNT 6.6 (4.9 to 9.9); 7 studies, 1439 participants, moderate-quality evidence).For all conditions combined, adverse event withdrawals were more common with gabapentin (11%) than with placebo (8.2%) (RR 1.4 (95% CI 1.1 to 1.7); NNH 30 (20 to 65); 22 studies, 4346 participants, high-quality evidence). Serious adverse events were no more common with gabapentin (3.2%) than with placebo (2.8%) (RR 1.2 (95% CI 0.8 to 1.7); 19 studies, 3948 participants, moderate-quality evidence); there were eight deaths (very low-quality evidence). Participants experiencing at least one adverse event were more common with gabapentin (63%) than with placebo (49%) (RR 1.3 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.4); NNH 7.5 (6.1 to 9.6); 18 studies, 4279 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Individual adverse events occurred significantly more often with gabapentin. Participants taking gabapentin experienced dizziness (19%), somnolence (14%), peripheral oedema (7%), and gait disturbance (14%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Gabapentin at doses of 1800 mg to 3600 mg daily (1200 mg to 3600 mg gabapentin encarbil) can provide good levels of pain relief to some people with postherpetic neuralgia and peripheral diabetic neuropathy. Evidence for other types of neuropathic pain is very limited. The outcome of at least 50% pain intensity reduction is regarded as a useful outcome of treatment by patients, and the achievement of this degree of pain relief is associated with important beneficial effects on sleep interference, fatigue, and depression, as well as quality of life, function, and work. Around 3 or 4 out of 10 participants achieved this degree of pain relief with gabapentin, compared with 1 or 2 out of 10 for placebo. Over half of those treated with gabapentin will not have worthwhile pain relief but may experience adverse events. Conclusions have not changed since the previous update of this review.

Combination of gabapentin and ramosetron for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after gynecologic laparoscopic surgery: a prospective randomized comparative study

Background

As a drug originally introduced for its anticonvulsant effects, gabapentin has been recently shown to be effective in the treatment of nausea and vomiting in various clinical settings. This study compared the antiemetic efficacy of oral gabapentin, intravenous ramosetron and gabapentin plus ramosetron in patients receiving fentanyl-based patient-controlled analgesia after laparoscopic gynecologic surgery.

Methods

One hundred and thirty two patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecologic surgery under general anesthesia were allocated randomly into three groups: group G received 300 mg oral gabapentin 1 h before anesthesia, group R received 0.3 mg intravenous ramosetron at the end of surgery, and group GR received a combination of 300 mg oral gabapentin 1 h before anesthesia and 0.3 mg intravenous ramosetron at the end of surgery. Postoperative nausea, retching, vomiting, rescue antiemetic drug use, pain, rescue analgesic requirements and adverse effects were assessed at 0–2, 2–24 and 24–48 h after surgery. Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) was defined as the presence of nausea, retching or vomiting.

Results

The incidence of complete response (no PONV and no rescue antiemetics up to 48 h postoperatively) was significantly higher in group GR (26/40, 65%) than group G (16/40, 40%; P = 0.025) and group R (18/44, 41%; P = 0.027), whereas there was no significant difference between group G and group R (P = 0.932). There were no significant between-group differences in the incidence of emetic episodes, use of rescue antiemetics, severe emesis, use of rescue analgesics or any adverse effects. Postoperative pain scores were also similar among groups.

Conclusions

The combination with gabapentin and ramosetron is superior to either drug alone for prevention of PONV after laparoscopic gynecologic surgery.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02617121, registered November 25, 2015.

Oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

Oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used in the treatment of pain in fibromyalgia, despite being considered not to be effective.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy, tolerability (drop-out due to adverse events), and safety (serious adverse events) of oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for fibromyalgia in adults.

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 any oral NSAID with placebo or another active treatment for relief of pain in fibromyalgia, 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), serious adverse events, and withdrawals due to adverse events; secondary outcomes were adverse events, withdrawals due to lack of efficacy, and outcomes relating to sleep, fatigue, and quality of life. Where pooled analysis was possible, we used dichotomous data to calculate risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT), using standard methods. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

Our searches identified six randomised, double-blind studies involving 292 participants in suitably characterised fibromyalgia. The mean age of participants was between 39 and 50 years, and 89% to 100% were women. The initial pain intensity was around 7/10 on a 0 to 10 pain scale, indicating severe pain. NSAIDs tested were etoricoxib 90 mg daily, ibuprofen 2400 mg daily, naproxen 1000 mg daily, and tenoxicam 20 mg daily; 146 participants received NSAID and 146 placebo. The duration of treatment in the double-blind phase varied between three and eight weeks.Not all studies reported all the outcomes of interest. Analyses consistently showed no significant difference between NSAID and placebo: substantial benefit (at least 50% pain intensity reduction) (risk difference (RD) -0.07 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.18 to 0.04) 2 studies, 146 participants; moderate benefit (at least 30% pain intensity reduction) (RD -0.04 (95% CI -0.16 to 0.08) 3 studies, 192 participants; withdrawals due to adverse events (RD 0.04 (95% CI -0.02 to 0.09) 4 studies, 230 participants; participants experiencing any adverse event (RD 0.08 (95% CI -0.03 to 0.19) 4 studies, 230 participants; all-cause withdrawals (RD 0.03 (95% CI -0.07 to 0.14) 3 studies, 192 participants. There were no serious adverse events or deaths. Although most studies had some measures of health-related quality of life, fibromyalgia impact, or other outcomes, none reported the outcomes beyond saying that there was no or little difference between the treatment groups.We downgraded evidence on all outcomes to very low quality, meaning that this research does not provide a reliable indication of the likely effect. The likelihood that the effect could be substantially different is very high. This is based on the small numbers of studies, participants, and events, as well as other deficiencies of reporting study quality allowing possible risks of bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is only a modest amount of very low-quality evidence about the use of NSAIDs in fibromyalgia, and that comes from small, largely inadequate studies with potential risk of bias. That bias would normally be to increase the apparent benefits of NSAIDs, but no such benefits were seen. Consequently, NSAIDs cannot be regarded as useful for treating fibromyalgia.

Homology-guided mutational analysis reveals the functional requirements for antinociceptive specificity of collapsin response mediator protein 2-derived peptides

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

N-type voltage-gated calcium (Ca_v 2.2) channels are critical determinants of increased neuronal excitability and neurotransmission accompanying persistent neuropathic pain. Although Ca_v 2.2 channel antagonists are recommended as first-line treatment for neuropathic pain, calcium-current blocking gabapentinoids inadequately alleviate chronic pain symptoms and often exhibit numerous side effects. Collapsin response mediator protein 2 (CRMP2) targets Ca_v 2.2 channels to the sensory neuron membrane and allosterically modulates their function. A 15-amino-acid peptide (CBD3), derived from CRMP2, disrupts the functional protein-protein interaction between CRMP2 and Ca_v 2.2 channels to inhibit calcium influx, transmitter release and acute, inflammatory and neuropathic pain. Here, we have mapped the minimal domain of CBD3 necessary for its antinociceptive potential.

EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

Truncated as well as homology-guided mutant versions of CBD3 were generated and assessed using depolarization-evoked calcium influx in rat dorsal root ganglion neurons, binding between CRMP2 and Ca_v 2.2 channels, whole-cell voltage clamp electrophysiology and behavioural effects in two models of experimental pain: post-surgical pain and HIV-induced sensory neuropathy induced by the viral glycoprotein 120.

KEY RESULTS

The first six amino acids within CBD3 accounted for all in vitro activity and antinociception. Spinal administration of a prototypical peptide (TAT-CBD3-L5M) reversed pain behaviours. Homology-guided mutational analyses of these six amino acids identified at least two residues, Ala1 and Arg4, as being critical for antinociception in two pain models.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

These results identify an antinociceptive scaffold core in CBD3 that can be used for development of low MW mimetics of CBD3.

LINKED ARTICLES

This article is part of a themed section on Recent Advances in Targeting Ion Channels to Treat Chronic Pain. To view the other articles in this section visit http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bph.v175.12/issuetoc.

Topical capsaicin (high concentration) for chronic neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

This review is an update of 'Topical capsaicin (high concentration) for chronic neuropathic pain in adults' last updated in Issue 2, 2013. Topical creams with capsaicin are used to treat peripheral neuropathic pain. Following application to the skin, capsaicin causes enhanced sensitivity, followed by a period with reduced sensitivity and, after repeated applications, persistent desensitisation. High-concentration (8%) capsaicin patches were developed to increase the amount of capsaicin delivered; rapid delivery was thought to improve tolerability because cutaneous nociceptors are 'defunctionalised' quickly. The single application avoids noncompliance. Only the 8% patch formulation of capsaicin is available, with a capsaicin concentration about 100 times greater than conventional creams. High-concentration topical capsaicin is given as a single patch application to the affected part. It must be applied under highly controlled conditions, often following local anaesthetic, due to the initial intense burning sensation it causes. The benefits are expected to last for about 12 weeks, when another application might be made.

OBJECTIVES

To review the evidence from controlled trials on the efficacy and tolerability of topically applied, high-concentration (8%) capsaicin in chronic neuropathic pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two clinical trials registries, and a pharmaceutical company's website to 10 June 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of at least 6 weeks' duration, using high-concentration (5% or more) topical capsaicin to treat neuropathic pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality and potential bias. Where pooled analysis was possible, we used dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and numbers needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods.Efficacy outcomes reflecting long-duration pain relief after a single drug application were from the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at specific points, usually 8 and 12 weeks. We also assessed average pain scores over weeks 2 to 8 and 2 to 12 and the number of participants with pain intensity reduction of at least 30% or at least 50% over baseline, and information on adverse events and withdrawals.We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight studies, involving 2488 participants, two more studies and 415 more participants than the previous version of this review. Studies were of generally good methodological quality; we judged only one study at high risk of bias, due to small size. Two studies used a placebo control and six used 0.04% topical capsaicin as an 'active' placebo to help maintain blinding. Efficacy outcomes were inconsistently reported, resulting in analyses for most outcomes being based on less than complete data.For postherpetic neuralgia, we found four studies (1272 participants). At both 8 and 12 weeks about 10% more participants reported themselves much or very much improved with high-concentration capsaicin than with 'active' placebo, with point estimates of numbers needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTs) of 8.8 (95% confidence interval (CI) 5.3 to 26) with high-concentration capsaicin and 7.0 (95% CI 4.6 to 15) with 'active' placebo (2 studies, 571 participants; moderate quality evidence). More participants (about 10%) had average 2 to 8-week and 2 to 12-week pain intensity reductions over baseline of at least 30% and at least 50% with capsaicin than control, with NNT values between 10 and 12 (2 to 4 studies, 571 to 1272 participants; very low quality evidence).For painful HIV-neuropathy, we found two studies (801 participants). One study reported the proportion of participants who were much or very much improved at 12 weeks (27% with high-concentration capsaicin and 10% with 'active' placebo). For both studies, more participants (about 10%) had average 2 to 12-week pain intensity reductions over baseline of at least 30% with capsaicin than control, with an NNT of 11 (very low quality evidence).For peripheral diabetic neuropathy, we found one study (369 participants). It reported about 10% more participants who were much or very much improved at 8 and 12 weeks. One small study of 46 participants with persistent pain following inguinal herniorrhaphy did not show a difference between capsaicin and placebo for pain reduction (very low quality evidence).We downgraded the quality of the evidence for efficacy outcomes by one to three levels due to sparse data, imprecision, possible effects of imputation methods, and susceptibility to publication bias.Local adverse events were common, but not consistently reported. Serious adverse events were no more common with active treatment (3.5%) than control (3.2%). Adverse event withdrawals did not differ between groups, but lack of efficacy withdrawals were somewhat more common with control than active treatment, based on small numbers of events (six to eight studies, 21 to 67 events; moderate quality evidence, downgraded due to few events). No deaths were judged to be related to study medication.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

High-concentration topical capsaicin used to treat postherpetic neuralgia, HIV-neuropathy, and painful diabetic neuropathy generated more participants with moderate or substantial levels of pain relief than control treatment using a much lower concentration of capsaicin. These results should be interpreted with caution as the quality of the evidence was moderate or very low. The additional proportion who benefited over control was not large, but for those who did obtain high levels of pain relief, there were usually additional improvements in sleep, fatigue, depression, and quality of life. High-concentration topical capsaicin is similar in its effects to other therapies for chronic pain.

Gabapentin for fibromyalgia pain in adults

BACKGROUND

This review replaces part of an earlier review that evaluated gabapentin for both neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia, now split into separate reviews for the two conditions. This review will consider pain in fibromyalgia only.Fibromyalgia is associated with widespread pain lasting longer than three months, and is frequently associated with symptoms such as poor sleep, fatigue, depression, and reduced quality of life. Fibromyalgia is more common in women.Gabapentin is an antiepileptic drug widely licensed for treatment of neuropathic pain. It is not licensed for the treatment of fibromyalgia, but is commonly used because fibromyalgia can respond to the same medicines as neuropathic pain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy of gabapentin for fibromyalgia pain in adults and the adverse events associated with its use in clinical trials.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE via Ovid and Embase via Ovid from inception to 24 May 2016. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and searched online clinical trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind trials of eight weeks' duration or longer for treating fibromyalgia pain in adults, comparing gabapentin with placebo or an active comparator.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent review authors extracted data and assessed trial quality and risk of bias. We planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and number needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods. We assessed the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

Two studies tested gabapentin to treat fibromyalgia pain. One was identified in previous versions of the review and is included here. We identified another study as a conference abstract, with insufficient detail to determine eligibility for inclusion; it is awaiting assessment. The one included study of 150 participants was a 12-week, multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study using last-observation-carried-forward imputation for withdrawals. The maximum dose was 2400 mg daily. The overall risk of bias was low, except for attrition bias.At the end of the trial, the outcome of 50% reduction in pain over baseline was not reported. The outcome of 30% or greater reduction in pain over baseline was achieved by 38/75 participants (49%) with gabapentin compared with 23/75 (31%) with placebo (very low quality). A patient global impression of change any category of "better" was achieved by 68/75 (91%) with gabapentin and 35/75 (47%) with placebo (very low quality).Nineteen participants discontinued the study because of adverse events: 12 in the gabapentin group (16%) and 7 in the placebo group (9%) (very low quality). The number of serious adverse events were not reported, and no deaths were reported (very low quality).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We have only very low quality evidence and are very uncertain about estimates of benefit and harm because of a small amount of data from a single trial. There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the suggestion that gabapentin reduces pain in fibromyalgia.

Management of Widespread Pain and Fibromyalgia

Specialists' views of fibromyalgia (FM) are typically colored by their experiences of the selected, complex cases that they are regularly called to evaluate. At a population level, it is crucial to recognize that education which promotes patient empowerment and non-pharmacological interventions which support self-management are very effective. The temptation, for both physician and patient, to first reach for pharmacological interventions should be resisted until such holistic approaches are explored. In particular, a strong evidence base supports graded exercise and cognitive behavioral therapies, but such treatments must be intelligently "prescribed." As reflected by the recent ACR criteria, FM is a highly heterogeneous disorder and is not simply a disorder of pain. For some patients, co-occurring symptoms, such as fatigue, can be equally as impactful and so management strategies should be sufficiently versatile to target those dimensions which are considered priorities at the level of the individual patient. In those patients who do require pharmacological support, patients should not be led to expect significant gains in isolation. The importance of self-management requires emphasis at each and every tier of management. It is true that advances in our understanding of neurobiology have greatly informed the selection of adjunctive drug classes which may provide benefit (as well as those which do not-as is the case of opioids). However, further unpicking of pathogenesis is still required if the FM landscape is to move further towards drug-led management.

The challenges of symptom management for patients with multimorbidity in research and practice: a thematic review

Multimorbidity, the presence of multiple coexisting diseases or conditions, afflicts the majority of older adults, and is associated with increased mortality and healthcare utilization. In addition, multimorbidity negatively impacts quality of life and increases symptom burden. Yet, there is a dearth of evidence on how to best manage symptoms in patients with multimorbidity. Research in this area has been hampered by inconsistent definitions of multimorbidity and challenges in outcome measurement. Investigations of symptom management strategies in specific disease states, like cancer, typically exclude medically complex patients. In the absence of evidence, the American Geriatrics Society's recommendations for the care of adults with multimorbidity provide a useful starting point for clinicians. We present a case to demonstrate how the AGS recommendations can be tailored to the situation of symptom management in patients with multimorbidity. We also present suggestions for future research directions.

Cannabinoids for fibromyalgia

BACKGROUND

This review is one of a series on drugs used to treat fibromyalgia. Fibromyalgia is a clinically well-defined chronic condition of unknown aetiology characterised by chronic widespread pain that often co-exists with sleep problems and fatigue affecting approximately 2% of the general population. People often report high disability levels and poor health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Drug therapy focuses on reducing key symptoms and disability, and improving HRQoL. Cannabis has been used for millennia to reduce pain and other somatic and psychological symptoms.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy, tolerability and safety of cannabinoids for fibromyalgia symptoms in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE to April 2016, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, three clinical trial registries, and contact with trial authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled trials of at least four weeks' duration of any formulation of cannabis products used for the treatment of adults with fibromyalgia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted the data of all included studies and assessed risk of bias. We resolved discrepancies by discussion. We performed analysis using three tiers of evidence. First tier evidence was derived from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction, intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for drop-outs; at least 200 participants in the comparison, eight to 12 weeks' duration, parallel design), second tier evidence from data that did not meet one or more of these criteria and were considered at some risk of bias but with adequate numbers (i.e. data from at least 200 participants) in the comparison, and third tier evidence from data involving small numbers of participants that were considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both. We assessed the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation).

MAIN RESULTS

We included two studies with 72 participants. Overall, the two studies were at moderate risk of bias. The evidence was derived from group mean data and completer analysis (very low quality evidence overall). We rated the quality of all outcomes according to GRADE as very low due to indirectness, imprecision and potential reporting bias.The primary outcomes in our review were participant-reported pain relief of 50% or greater, Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) much or very much improved, withdrawal due to adverse events (tolerability) and serious adverse events (safety). Nabilone was compared to placebo and to amitriptyline in one study each. Study sizes were 32 and 40 participants. One study used a cross-over design and one used a parallel group design; study duration was four or six weeks. Both studies used nabilone, a synthetic cannabinoid, with a bedtime dosage of 1 mg/day. No study reported the proportion of participants experiencing at least 30% or 50% pain relief or who were very much improved. No study provided first or second tier (high to moderate quality) evidence for an outcome of efficacy, tolerability and safety. Third tier (very low quality) evidence indicated greater reduction of pain and limitations of HRQoL compared to placebo in one study. There were no significant differences to placebo noted for fatigue and depression (very low quality evidence). Third tier evidence indicated better effects of nabilone on sleep than amitriptyline (very low quality evidence). There were no significant differences between the two drugs noted for pain, mood and HRQoL (very low quality evidence). More participants dropped out due to adverse events in the nabilone groups (4/52 participants) than in the control groups (1/20 in placebo and 0/32 in amitriptyline group). The most frequent adverse events were dizziness, nausea, dry mouth and drowsiness (six participants with nabilone). Neither study reported serious adverse events during the period of both studies. We planned to create a GRADE 'Summary of findings' table, but due to the scarcity of data we were unable to do this. We found no relevant study with herbal cannabis, plant-based cannabinoids or synthetic cannabinoids other than nabilone in fibromyalgia.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no convincing, unbiased, high quality evidence suggesting that nabilone is of value in treating people with fibromyalgia. The tolerability of nabilone was low in people with fibromyalgia.

Prescription of Long-Acting Opioids and Mortality in Patients With Chronic Noncancer Pain

IMPORTANCE

Long-acting opioids increase the risk of unintentional overdose deaths but also may increase mortality from cardiorespiratory and other causes.

OBJECTIVE

To compare all-cause mortality for patients with chronic noncancer pain who were prescribed either long-acting opioids or alternative medications for moderate to severe chronic pain.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Retrospective cohort study between 1999 and 2012 of Tennessee Medicaid patients with chronic noncancer pain and no evidence of palliative or end-of-life care.

EXPOSURES

Propensity score-matched new episodes of prescribed therapy for long-acting opioids or either analgesic anticonvulsants or low-dose cyclic antidepressants (control medications).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Total and cause-specific mortality as determined from death certificates. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and risk differences (difference in incidence of death) were calculated for long-acting opioid therapy vs control medication.

RESULTS

There were 22,912 new episodes of prescribed therapy for both long-acting opioids and control medications (mean [SD] age, 48 [11] years; 60% women). The long-acting opioid group was followed up for a mean 176 days and had 185 deaths and the control treatment group was followed up for a mean 128 days and had 87 deaths. The HR for total mortality was 1.64 (95% CI, 1.26-2.12) with a risk difference of 68.5 excess deaths (95% CI, 28.2-120.7) per 10,000 person-years. Increased risk was due to out-of-hospital deaths (154 long-acting opioid, 60 control deaths; HR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.40-2.58; risk difference, 67.1; 95% CI, 30.1-117.3) excess deaths per 10,000 person-years. For out-of-hospital deaths other than unintentional overdose (120 long-acting opioid, 53 control deaths), the HR was 1.72 (95% CI, 1.24-2.39) with a risk difference of 47.4 excess deaths (95% CI, 15.7-91.4) per 10,000 person-years. The HR for cardiovascular deaths (79 long-acting opioid, 36 control deaths) was 1.65 (95% CI, 1.10-2.46) with a risk difference of 28.9 excess deaths (95% CI, 4.6-65.3) per 10,000 person-years. The HR during the first 30 days of therapy (53 long-acting opioid, 13 control deaths) was 4.16 (95% CI, 2.27-7.63) with a risk difference of 200 excess deaths (95% CI, 80-420) per 10,000 person-years.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Prescription of long-acting opioids for chronic noncancer pain, compared with anticonvulsants or cyclic antidepressants, was associated with a significantly increased risk of all-cause mortality, including deaths from causes other than overdose, with a modest absolute risk difference. These findings should be considered when evaluating harms and benefits of treatment.

Antipsychotics for fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

This review is one of a series on drugs used to treat fibromyalgia. Fibromyalgia is a clinically well-defined chronic condition of unknown aetiology characterised by chronic widespread pain that often co-exists with sleep problems and fatigue. It affects approximately 2% of the general population. Up to 70% of patients with fibromyalgia meet the criteria for a depressive or anxiety disorder. People often report high disability levels and poor health-related quality of life. Drug therapy focuses on reducing key symptoms and disability, and improving health-related quality of life. Antipsychotics might reduce fibromyalgia and associated mental health symptoms.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy, tolerability and safety of antipsychotics in fibromyalgia in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (2016, Issue 4), MEDLINE and EMBASE to 20 May 2016, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews and two clinical trial registries. We also contacted trial authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected controlled trials of at least four weeks duration of any formulation of antipsychotics used for the treatment of fibromyalgia in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted the data from all included studies and two review authors independently assessed study risks of bias. We resolved discrepancies by discussion. We performed analysis using three tiers of evidence. We derived first tier evidence from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction, intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for drop-outs, at least 200 participants in the comparison, eight to 12 weeks duration, parallel design), second tier evidence from data that failed to meet one or more of these criteria and that we considered at some risk of bias but with adequate numbers in the comparison, and third tier evidence from data involving small numbers of participants that we considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both. We rated the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of four studies with 296 participants.Three studies with 206 participants compared quetiapine, an atypical (second-generation) antipsychotic, with placebo. One study used a cross-over design and two studies a parallel-group design. Study duration was eight or 12 weeks. Quetiapine was used in all studies with a bedtime dosage between 50 and 300 mg/day. All studies had one or more sources of potential major bias and we judged them to be at moderate risk of bias overall. The primary outcomes in this review were participant-reported pain relief of 50% or greater, Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) much or very much improved, withdrawal due to adverse events (tolerability) and serious adverse events (safety).Second tier evidence indicated that quetiapine was not statistically superior to placebo in the number of participants with a 50% or more pain reduction (very low quality evidence). No study reported data on PGIC. A greater proportion of participants on quetiapine reported a 30% or more pain reduction (risk difference (RD) 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.23; number needed to treat for an additional benefit (NNTB) 8, 95% CI 5 to 100) (very low quality evidence). A greater proportion of participants on quetiapine reported a clinically relevant improvement of health-related quality of life compared to placebo ( RD 0.18, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.31; NNTB 5, 95% CI 3 to 20) (very low quality evidence). Quetiapine was statistically superior to placebo in reducing sleep problems (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.67, 95% CI -1.10 to -0.23), depression (SMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.74 to -0.04) and anxiety (SMD -0.40, 95% CI -0.69 to -0.11) (very low quality evidence). Quetiapine was statistically superior to placebo in reducing the risk of withdrawing from the study due to a lack of efficacy (RD -0.14, 95% CI -0.23 to -0.05) (very low quality evidence). There was no statistically significant difference between quetiapine and placebo in the proportion of participants withdrawing due to adverse events (tolerability) (very low quality evidence), in the frequency of serious adverse events (safety) (very low quality evidence) and in the proportion of participants reporting dizziness and somnolence as an adverse event (very low quality evidence). In more participants in the quetiapine group a substantial weight gain was noted (RD 0.08, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.15; number needed to treat for an additional harm (NNTH) 12, 95% CI 6 to 50) (very low quality evidence). We downgraded the quality of evidence by three levels to a very low quality rating because of limitations of study design, indirectness (patients with major medical diseases and mental disorders were excluded) and imprecision (fewer than 400 patients were analysed).One parallel design study with 90 participants compared quetiapine (50 to 300 mg/day flexible at bedtime) to amitriptyline (10 to 75 mg/day flexible at bedtime). The study had three major risks of bias and we judged it to be at moderate risk of bias overall. We downgraded the quality of evidence by two levels to a low quality rating because of indirectness (patients with major medical diseases and mental disorders were excluded) and imprecision (fewer than 400 patients were analysed). Third tier evidence indicated no statistically significant differences between the two drugs. Both drugs did not statistically significantly differ in the reduction of average scores for pain, fatigue, sleep problems, depression, anxiety and for limitations of health-related quality of life and in the proportion of participants reporting dizziness, somnolence and weight gain as a side effect (low quality evidence). Compared to amitriptyline, more participants left the study due to adverse events (low quality evidence). No serious adverse events were reported (low quality evidence).We found no relevant study with other antipsychotics than quetiapine in fibromyalgia.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Very low quality evidence suggests that quetiapine may be considered for a time-limited trial (4 to 12 weeks) to reduce pain, sleep problems, depression and anxiety in fibromyalgia patients with major depression. Potential side effects such as weight gain should be balanced against the potential benefits in shared decision making with the patient.

Palmitoylethanolamide in Fibromyalgia: Results from Prospective and Retrospective Observational Studies

Introduction

Fibromyalgia syndrome (FM) is characterized by persistent pain which is often refractory to common analgesic therapies and is particularly disabling. The objective of this study was to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of duloxetine (DLX) + pregabalin (PGB) in patients suffering from FM and the possible added benefit of the lipid signaling molecule, palmitoylethanolamide (PEA). PEA is well-documented to exert anti-inflammatory, analgesic, and pain-relieving effects at both the preclinical and clinical level.

Methods

A total of 80 patients were recruited in two steps. The first was a retrospective observational study comprising 45 patients. This patient group received DLX + PGB for 6 months. The second step was a prospective observational study with 35 patients. Patients in this cohort began treatment with DLX + PGB at the same dosage as for the retrospective study plus micronized PEA (PEA-m^®; Epitech Group, Italy) and ultramicronized PEA (PEA-um^®; Epitech Group, Italy) for 3 months. Positive tender points (TPs), pain evoked, and pain intensity were evaluated at baseline and after 3 and 6 months in both studies. Statistical analyses were employed for comparison of data within the two studies and between them.

Results

The retrospective observational study (DLX + PGB), after 3 months of treatment showed a decrease of positive TPs, pain evoked, and pain intensity. After 6 months of treatment, these parameters had further improvement. In the prospective observational study (DLX + PGB + PEA), PEA introduction after 3 months of therapeutic regimen with DLX + PGB provided a significant improvement in pain symptoms, with a further reduction in the number of TPs and significant reduction in pain, compared to combined DLX + PGB only (p < 0.0001 for TPs and Visual Analog Scale comparisons). None of the patients experienced adverse side effects.

Conclusion

Our study confirms the efficacy of DLX + PGB and demonstrates as well the added benefit and safety of PEA in the treatment of pain in patients affected by FM.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40122-015-0038-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Treatment of Postherpetic Neuralgia Using Narrow Band Ultraviolet B Radiation (UVB)

Postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) is a common complication of herpes zoster, frequently unresponsive to most available treatment. The disease is especially difficult to manage in elderly people and has a great impact on the quality of life of patients. Narrow band ultraviolet B radiation may play a role in the prevention and treatment of PHN. Present paper describes a case of a 59 year-old female patient, diagnosed with ophthalmic herpes zoster and postherpetic neuralgia, with positive results using narrow UVB.

Paediatric pancreatitis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to describe recent developments in paediatric pancreatitis and to discuss causes and current management.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although recent studies have estimated the annual incidence of paediatric acute pancreatitis approaching that of adults, there are no established guidelines about its diagnosis and treatment in children. Genetic and structural/congenital abnormalities are emerging as the primary risk factors for paediatric acute recurrent and chronic pancreatitis. Specifically, chronic pancreatitis is associated with a significant socioeconomic burden in children. Both medical and surgical therapies are proposed for paediatric chronic pancreatitis, but there is little evidence that they are beneficial.

SUMMARY

Acute recurrent and chronic pancreatitis create significant health issues in the paediatric population. Medical and surgical therapies exist to potentially treat these conditions, but the paediatric data are limited and the cohorts are small. A multidisciplinary and multicentre approach is necessary to better determine pancreatic disease processes and treatment options in children.

Pharmacovigilance in hospice/palliative care: net effect of gabapentin for neuropathic pain

OBJECTIVE

Hospice/palliative care patients may differ from better studied populations, and data from other populations cannot necessarily be extrapolated into hospice/palliative care clinical practice. Pharmacovigilance studies provide opportunities to understand the harms and benefits of medications in routine practice. Gabapentin, a γ-amino butyric acid analogue antiepileptic drug, is commonly prescribed for neuropathic pain in hospice/palliative care. Most of the evidence however relates to non-malignant, chronic pain syndromes (diabetic neuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, central pain syndromes, fibromyalgia). The aim of this study was to quantify the immediate and short-term clinical benefits and harms of gabapentin in routine hospice/palliative care practice.

DESIGN

Multisite, prospective, consecutive cohort.

POPULATION

127 patients, 114 of whom had cancer, who started gabapentin for neuropathic pain as part of routine clinical care.

SETTINGS

42 centres from seven countries. Data were collected at three time points-at baseline, at day 7 (and at any time; immediate and short-term harms) and at day 21 (clinical benefits).

RESULTS

At day 21, the average dose of gabapentin for those still using it (n=68) was 653 mg/24 h (range 0-1800 mg) and 54 (42%) reported benefits, of whom 7 (6%) experienced complete pain resolution. Harms were reported in 39/127 (30%) patients at day 7, the most frequent of which were cognitive disturbance, somnolence, nausea and dizziness. Ten patients had their medication ceased due to harms. The presence of significant comorbidities, higher dose and increasing age increased the likelihood of harm.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, 42% of people experienced benefit at a level that resulted in continued use at 21 days.

Topical clonidine for neuropathic pain

BACKGROUND

Clonidine is a presynaptic alpha-2-adrenergic receptor agonist used for many years to treat hypertension and other conditions, including chronic pain. Adverse events associated with systemic use of the drug have limited its application. Topical use of drugs is currently gaining interest, as it may limit adverse events without loss of analgesic efficacy. Topical clonidine (TC) formulations have been investigated recently in clinical trials.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this review were to assess the analgesic efficacy of TC for chronic neuropathic pain in adults and to assess the frequency of adverse events associated with clinical use of TC for chronic neuropathic pain.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS) Online (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL)), MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, reference lists of retrieved papers and trial registries, and we contacted experts in the field. We performed the most recent search on 17 September 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind studies of at least two weeks' duration comparing TC versus placebo or other active treatment in patients with chronic neuropathic pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted data from the studies and assessed bias. We planned three tiers of evidence analysis. The first tier was designed to analyse data meeting current best standards, by which studies reported the outcome of at least 50% pain intensity reduction over baseline (or its equivalent) without use of the last observation carried forward or other imputation method for dropouts, reported an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, lasted eight weeks or longer, had a parallel-group design and included at least 200 participants (preferably at least 400) in the comparison. The second tier was designed to use data from at least 200 participants but in cases in which one of the above conditions was not met. The third tier of evidence was assumed in other situations.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two studies in the review, with a total of 344 participants. Studies lasted 8 weeks and 12 weeks and compared TC versus placebo. 0.1%. TC was applied in gel form to the painful area two to three times daily.Studies included in this review were subject to potential bias and were classified as of moderate or low quality. One drug manufacturer supported both studies.We found no top-tier evidence for TC in neuropathic pain. Second-tier evidence indicated slight improvement after the drug was used in study participants with painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN). A greater number of participants in the TC group had at least 30% reduction in pain compared with placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 1.77; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 8.33, 95% CI 4.3 to 50). Third-tier evidence indicated that TC was no better than placebo for achieving at least 50% reduction in pain intensity and on the Patient Global Impression of Change Scale. The two included studies could be subject to significant bias. We found no studies that reported other neuropathic pain conditions.The rate of adverse events did not differ between groups, with the exception of a higher incidence of mild skin reactions in the placebo group, which should have no clinical significance.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Limited evidence from a small number of studies of moderate to low quality suggests that TC may provide some benefit in peripheral diabetic neuropathy. The drug may be useful in situations for which no better treatment options are available because of lack of efficacy, contraindications or adverse events. Additional trials are needed to assess TC in other neuropathic pain conditions and to determine how patients who have a chance to respond to the drug should be selected for treatment.

Pharmacological treatment for pain in Guillain-Barré syndrome

BACKGROUND

Pain in Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is common, yet it is often under recognised and poorly managed. In recent years, a variety of pharmacological treatment options have been investigated in clinical trials for people with GBS-associated pain. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 10, 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatments for various pain symptoms associated with GBS, during both the acute and convalescent (three months or more after onset) phases of GBS.

SEARCH METHODS

On 3 November 2014, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE. In addition, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in participants with confirmed GBS, with pain assessment as either the primary or secondary outcome. For cross-over trials, an adequate washout period between phases was required for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of identified records, selected studies for inclusion, extracted eligible data, cross-checked the data for accuracy and assessed the risk of bias of each study.

MAIN RESULTS

Three short-term RCTs, which enrolled 277 randomised participants with acute phase GBS, were included. Risk of bias in the included studies was generally unclear due to insufficient information. None of the included studies reported the primary outcome selected for this review, which was number of patients with self reported pain relief of 50% or greater. One small study investigated seven-day regimens of gabapentin versus placebo. Pain was rated on a scale from 0 (no pain) to 10 (maximum pain). Amongst the 18 participants, significantly lower mean pain scores were found at the endpoint (day 7) in the gabapentin phase compared to the endpoint of the placebo phase (mean difference -3.61, 95% CI -4.12 to -3.10) (very low quality evidence). For adverse events, no significant differences were found in the incidence of nausea (risk ratio (RR) 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.04) or constipation (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.54). A second study enrolling 36 participants compared gabapentin, carbamazepine and placebo, all administered over seven days. Participants in the gabapentin group had significantly lower median pain scores on all treatment days in comparison to the placebo and carbamazepine groups (P < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in the median pain scores between the carbamazepine and placebo groups from day 1 to day 3, but from day 4 until the end of the study significantly lower median pain scores were noted in the carbamazepine group (P < 0.05) (very low quality evidence). There were no adverse effects of gabapentin or carbamazepine reported, other than sedation. One large RCT (223 participants, all also treated with intravenous immunoglobulin), compared a five-day course of methylprednisolone with placebo and found no statistically significant differences in number of participants developing pain (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.16), number of participants with decreased pain (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.42) or number of participants with increased pain (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.41) (low quality evidence). The study did not report whether there were any adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Since the last version of this review we found no new studies. While management of pain in GBS is essential and pharmacotherapy is widely accepted as being an important component of treatment, this review does not provide sufficient evidence to support the use of any pharmacological intervention in people with pain in GBS. Although reductions in pain severity were found when comparing gabapentin and carbamazepine with placebo, the evidence was limited and its quality very low. Larger, well-designed RCTs are required to further investigate the efficacy and safety of potential interventions for patients with pain in GBS. Additionally, interventions for pain in the convalescent phase of GBS should be investigated.

Mind and body therapy for fibromyalgia

BACKGROUND

Mind-body interventions are based on the holistic principle that mind, body and behaviour are all interconnected. Mind-body interventions incorporate strategies that are thought to improve psychological and physical well-being, aim to allow patients to take an active role in their treatment, and promote people's ability to cope. Mind-body interventions are widely used by people with fibromyalgia to help manage their symptoms and improve well-being. Examples of mind-body therapies include psychological therapies, biofeedback, mindfulness, movement therapies and relaxation strategies.

OBJECTIVES

To review the benefits and harms of mind-body therapies in comparison to standard care and attention placebo control groups for adults with fibromyalgia, post-intervention and at three and six month follow-up.

SEARCH METHODS

Electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), AMED (EBSCO) and CINAHL (Ovid) were conducted up to 30 October 2013. Searches of reference lists were conducted and authors in the field were contacted to identify additional relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of mind-body interventions for adults with fibromyalgia were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected studies, extracted the data and assessed trials for low, unclear or high risk of bias. Any discrepancy was resolved through discussion and consensus. Continuous outcomes were analysed using mean difference (MD) where the same outcome measure and scoring method was used and standardised mean difference (SMD) where different outcome measures were used. For binary data standard estimation of the risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) was used.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventy-four papers describing 61 trials were identified, with 4234 predominantly female participants. The nature of fibromyalgia varied from mild to severe across the study populations. Twenty-six studies were classified as having a low risk of bias for all domains assessed. The findings of mind-body therapies compared with usual care were prioritised.There is low quality evidence that in comparison to usual care controls psychological therapies have favourable effects on physical functioning (SMD -0.4, 95% CI -0.6 to -0.3, -7.5% absolute change, 2 point shift on a 0 to 100 scale), pain (SMD -0.3, 95% CI -0.5 to -0.2, -3.5% absolute change, 2 point shift on a 0 to 100 scale) and mood (SMD -0.5, 95% CI -0.6 to -0.3, -4.8% absolute change, 3 point shift on a 20 to 80 scale). There is very low quality evidence of more withdrawals in the psychological therapy group in comparison to usual care controls (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.69, 6% absolute risk difference). There is lack of evidence of a difference between the number of adverse events in the psychological therapy and control groups (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.06 to 2.50, 4% absolute risk difference).There was very low quality evidence that biofeedback in comparison to usual care controls had an effect on physical functioning (SMD -0.1, 95% CI -0.4 to 0.3, -1.2% absolute change, 1 point shift on a 0 to 100 scale), pain (SMD -2.6, 95% CI -91.3 to 86.1, -2.6% absolute change) and mood (SMD 0.1, 95% CI -0.3 to 0.5, 1.9% absolute change, less than 1 point shift on a 0 to 90 scale) post-intervention. In view of the quality of evidence we cannot be certain that biofeedback has a little or no effect on these outcomes. There was very low quality evidence that biofeedback led to more withdrawals from the study (RR 4.08, 95% CI 1.43 to 11.62, 20% absolute risk difference). No adverse events were reported.There was no advantage observed for mindfulness in comparison to usual care for physical functioning (SMD -0.3, 95% CI -0.6 to 0.1, -4.8% absolute change, 4 point shift on a scale 0 to 100), pain (SMD -0.1, CI -0.4 to 0.3, -1.3% absolute change, less than 1 point shift on a 0 to 10 scale), mood (SMD -0.2, 95% CI -0.5 to 0.0, -3.7% absolute change, 2 point shift on a 20 to 80 scale) or withdrawals (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.72, 2% absolute risk difference) between the two groups post-intervention. However, the quality of the evidence was very low for pain and moderate for mood and number of withdrawals. No studies reported any adverse events.Very low quality evidence revealed that movement therapies in comparison to usual care controls improved pain (MD -2.3, CI -4.2 to -0.4, -23% absolute change) and mood (MD -9.8, 95% CI -18.5 to -1.2, -16.4% absolute change) post-intervention. There was no advantage for physical functioning (SMD -0.2, 95% CI -0.5 to 0.2, -3.4% absolute change, 2 point shift on a 0 to 100 scale), participant withdrawals (RR 1.95, 95% CI 1.13 to 3.38, 11% absolute difference) or adverse events (RR 4.62, 95% CI 0.23 to 93.92, 4% absolute risk difference) between the two groups, however rare adverse events may include worsening of pain.Low quality evidence revealed that relaxation based therapies in comparison to usual care controls showed an advantage for physical functioning (MD -8.3, 95% CI -10.1 to -6.5, -10.4% absolute change) and pain (SMD -1.0, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.5, -3.5% absolute change, 2 point shift on a 0 to 78 scale) but not for mood (SMD -4.4, CI -14.5 to 5.6, -7.4% absolute change) post-intervention. There was no difference between the groups for number of withdrawals (RR 4.40, 95% CI 0.59 to 33.07, 31% absolute risk difference) and no adverse events were reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Psychological interventions therapies may be effective in improving physical functioning, pain and low mood for adults with fibromyalgia in comparison to usual care controls but the quality of the evidence is low. Further research on the outcomes of therapies is needed to determine if positive effects identified post-intervention are sustained. The effectiveness of biofeedback, mindfulness, movement therapies and relaxation based therapies remains unclear as the quality of the evidence was very low or low. The small number of trials and inconsistency in the use of outcome measures across the trials restricted the analysis.

A cross-sectional study of pain sensitivity, disease-activity assessment, mental health, and fibromyalgia status in rheumatoid arthritis

Introduction

Pain remains the most important problem for people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Active inflammatory disease contributes to pain, but pain due to non-inflammatory mechanisms can confound the assessment of disease activity. We hypothesize that augmented pain processing, fibromyalgic features, poorer mental health, and patient-reported 28-joint disease activity score (DAS28) components are associated in RA.

Methods

In total, 50 people with stable, long-standing RA recruited from a rheumatology outpatient clinic were assessed for pain-pressure thresholds (PPTs) at three separate sites (knee, tibia, and sternum), DAS28, fibromyalgia, and mental health status. Multivariable analysis was performed to assess the association between PPT and DAS28 components, DAS28-P (the proportion of DAS28 derived from the patient-reported components of visual analogue score and tender joint count), or fibromyalgia status.

Results

More-sensitive PPTs at sites over or distant from joints were each associated with greater reported pain, higher patient-reported DAS28 components, and poorer mental health. A high proportion of participants (48%) satisfied classification criteria for fibromyalgia, and fibromyalgia classification or characteristics were each associated with more sensitive PPTs, higher patient-reported DAS28 components, and poorer mental health.

Conclusions

Widespread sensitivity to pressure-induced pain, a high prevalence of fibromyalgic features, higher patient-reported DAS28 components, and poorer mental health are all linked in established RA. The increased sensitivity at nonjoint sites (sternum and anterior tibia), as well as over joints, indicates that central mechanisms may contribute to pain sensitivity in RA. The contribution of patient-reported components to high DAS28 should inform decisions on disease-modifying or pain-management approaches in the treatment of RA when inflammation may be well controlled.

Treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy

Painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) is a debilitating consequence of diabetes that may be present in as many as one in five patients with diabetes. The objective assessment of PDN is difficult, making it challenging to diagnose and assess in both clinical practice and clinical trials. No single treatment exists to prevent or reverse neuropathic changes or to provide total pain relief. Treatment of PDN is based on three major approaches: intensive glycaemic control and risk factor management, treatments based on pathogenetic mechanisms, and symptomatic pain management. Clinical guidelines recommend pain relief in PDN through the use of antidepressants such as amitriptyline and duloxetine, the γ-aminobutyric acid analogues gabapentin and pregabalin, opioids and topical agents such as capsaicin. Of these medications, duloxetine and pregabalin were approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2004 and tapentadol extended release was approved in 2012 for the treatment of PDN. Proposed pathogenetic treatments include α-lipoic acid (stems reactive oxygen species formation), benfotiamine (prevents vascular damage in diabetes) and aldose-reductase inhibitors (reduces flux through the polyol pathway). There is a growing need for studies to evaluate the most potent drugs or combinations for the management of PDN to maximize pain relief and improve quality of life. A number of agents are potential candidates for future use in PDN therapy, including Nav 1.7 antagonists, N-type calcium channel blockers, NGF antibodies and angiotensin II type 2 receptor antagonists.

The Efficacy of Gabapentin in Patients with Central Post-stroke Pain

Thalamic pain syndrome, a type of central post-stroke pain (CPSP), may develops after a hemorrhagic or ischemic stroke and results in impairment of the thalamus. There is limited experience about gabapentin in treatment of central pains like CPSP. In a prospective observational study, the intensity of pain was recorded using the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) at the entrance to the study. Patients eligible for treating with gabapentin, received gabapentin 300 mg twice-daily. The pain intensity was measured at entrance to the study and after one month using NRS. Decrease of 3 points from the initial NRS considered being clinically significant. From a total of 180 primarily screened patients, 84 (44 men and 40 women) were recruited. There was a significant difference between pre-treatment and post-treatment NRS (5.9 ± 2.51 vs. 4.7 ± 3.01; 95% CI: 0.442-1.962, p = 0.002). Fisher's exact test showed no statistically significant effect of clinical and demographic characteristics of patients on their therapeutic response to gabapentin. Given the safety, efficacy, well tolerability and lack of interaction with other drugs we suggest gabapentin to be more considered as a first line therapy or as add-on therapy for reducing the pain severity in patients with thalamic syndrome.