Efficacy and safety of duloxetine and Pregabalin in Iranian patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain: a double-blind, randomized clinical trial

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled head-to-head trials of recommended drugs for neuropathic pain

Neuropathic pain is a challenging chronic pain condition. Limited knowledge exists regarding the relative effectiveness of pharmacological treatments, and differences in trial design and impact of the placebo response preclude indirect comparisons of efficacy between drug classes. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis of head-to-head trials was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of drugs recommended for neuropathic pain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of direct-comparison double-blind randomized trials. Primary outcomes were mean change in pain intensity and number of responders with a 50% reduction in pain intensity. Secondary outcomes encompassed quality of life, sleep, emotional functioning, and number of dropouts because of adverse events. We included 30 trials (4087 patients), comprising 16 crossover and 14 parallel-group design studies. All studies were conducted in adults, and the majority were investigator-initiated trials. We found moderate-quality evidence for equivalence (no clinically relevant difference) between tricyclic antidepressants (TCA) and gabapentin/pregabalin with a combined mean difference in pain score of 0.10 (95% CI -0.13 to 0.32). We could not document differences between TCA and serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRI), between SNRI and gabapentin/pregabalin, or between opioids and TCA (low quality of evidence). We found more dropouts because of adverse events with SNRI and opioids compared with TCA (low quality of evidence). We did not identify any studies that included topical treatments. This systematic review of direct-comparison studies found evidence for equivalence between TCA and gabapentin/pregabalin and fewer dropouts with TCA than SNRI and opioids.

Expert Consensus on Ion Channel Drugs for Chronic Pain Treatment in China

Ion channel drugs have been increasing used for chronic pain management with progress in the development of selective calcium channel modulators. Although ion channel drugs have been proven safe and effective in clinical practice, uncertainty remains regarding its use to treat chronic pain. To standardize the clinical practice of ion channel drug for the treatment of chronic pain, the National Health Commission Capacity Building and Continuing Education Center for Pain Diagnosis and Treatment Special Ability Training Project established an expert group to form an expert consensus on the use of ion channel drugs for the treatment of chronic pain after repeated discussions on existing medical evidence combined with the well clinical experience of experts. The consensus provided information on the mechanism of action of ion channel drugs and their recommendations, caution use, contraindications, and precautions for their use in special populations to support doctors in their clinical decision-making.

Selenium supplementation effect on glycemic control: A GRADE-assessed systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Results from different studies on the effects of selenium supplementation on glycemic control are still debated. To fill this knowledge gap, we investigated the overall effects of selenium supplementation on some glycemic parameters such as fasting blood sugar (FBS), hemoglobinA1c (HbA1c), fasting insulin, quantitative insulin sensitivity check index (QUICKI), and homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR). A comprehensive literature search was conducted from inception to April 2023 on Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which reported an effect of selenium supplementation on glycemic parameters were included. A random-effects model was used to estimate the weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% CI for each outcome. Between-studies heterogeneity was assessed by the I2 and Cochran's Q test. 20 trials were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled analysis showed that selenium intake significantly reduced fasting insulin (WMD: -3.02 µIu/mL, 95% CI; -5.13, -0.90, P = 0.005) and increased QUICKI levels (WMD: 0.01, 95% CI: 0.01, 0.02, P = 0.005). However, selenium supplementation did not change FBS (WMD: -1.32 mg/dL, 95% CI; -4.02, 1.37, P = 0.332), HbA1c (WMD = 0.05%, 95% CI: -0.19, 0.28, p = 0.701), and HOMA-IR (WMD: -0.82, 95% CI; -2.14, 0.50, P = 0.223). Moreover, we found that there is a non-linear association between selenium supplementation dosage and FBS (P-nonlinearity = 0.008). In conclusion, our study findings indicate some benefits of selenium on fasting insulin, and QUICKI compared with placebo, but elicits no effect on HbA1c, HOMA-IR, and FBS. Further well-designed RCTs with larger samples are necessary to ascertain the effects of selenium supplementation on glycemic control.

Antidepressants for pain management in adults with chronic pain: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain is common in adults, and often has a detrimental impact upon physical ability, well-being, and quality of life. Previous reviews have shown that certain antidepressants may be effective in reducing pain with some benefit in improving patients' global impression of change for certain chronic pain conditions. However, there has not been a network meta-analysis (NMA) examining all antidepressants across all chronic pain conditions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of antidepressants for adults with chronic pain (except headache).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, AMED and PsycINFO databases, and clinical trials registries, for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of antidepressants for chronic pain conditions in January 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that examined antidepressants for chronic pain against any comparator. If the comparator was placebo, another medication, another antidepressant, or the same antidepressant at different doses, then we required the study to be double-blind. We included RCTs with active comparators that were unable to be double-blinded (e.g. psychotherapy) but rated them as high risk of bias. We excluded RCTs where the follow-up was less than two weeks and those with fewer than 10 participants in each arm.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors separately screened, data extracted, and judged risk of bias. We synthesised the data using Bayesian NMA and pairwise meta-analyses for each outcome and ranked the antidepressants in terms of their effectiveness using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). We primarily used Confidence in Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) and Risk of Bias due to Missing Evidence in Network meta-analysis (ROB-MEN) to assess the certainty of the evidence. Where it was not possible to use CINeMA and ROB-MEN due to the complexity of the networks, we used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. Our primary outcomes were substantial (50%) pain relief, pain intensity, mood, and adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were moderate pain relief (30%), physical function, sleep, quality of life, Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), serious adverse events, and withdrawal.

MAIN RESULTS

This review and NMA included 176 studies with a total of 28,664 participants. The majority of studies were placebo-controlled (83), and parallel-armed (141). The most common pain conditions examined were fibromyalgia (59 studies); neuropathic pain (49 studies) and musculoskeletal pain (40 studies). The average length of RCTs was 10 weeks. Seven studies provided no useable data and were omitted from the NMA. The majority of studies measured short-term outcomes only and excluded people with low mood and other mental health conditions. Across efficacy outcomes, duloxetine was consistently the highest-ranked antidepressant with moderate- to high-certainty evidence. In duloxetine studies, standard dose was equally efficacious as high dose for the majority of outcomes. Milnacipran was often ranked as the next most efficacious antidepressant, although the certainty of evidence was lower than that of duloxetine. There was insufficient evidence to draw robust conclusions for the efficacy and safety of any other antidepressant for chronic pain.  Primary efficacy outcomes Duloxetine standard dose (60 mg) showed a small to moderate effect for substantial pain relief (odds ratio (OR) 1.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.69 to 2.17; 16 studies, 4490 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and continuous pain intensity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.31, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.24; 18 studies, 4959 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). For pain intensity, milnacipran standard dose (100 mg) also showed a small effect (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.06; 4 studies, 1866 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Mirtazapine (30 mg) had a moderate effect on mood (SMD -0.5, 95% CI -0.78 to -0.22; 1 study, 406 participants; low-certainty evidence), while duloxetine showed a small effect (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.22 to -0.1; 26 studies, 7952 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); however it is important to note that most studies excluded participants with mental health conditions, and so average anxiety and depression scores tended to be in the 'normal' or 'subclinical' ranges at baseline already. Secondary efficacy outcomes Across all secondary efficacy outcomes (moderate pain relief, physical function, sleep, quality of life, and PGIC), duloxetine and milnacipran were the highest-ranked antidepressants with moderate-certainty evidence, although effects were small. For both duloxetine and milnacipran, standard doses were as efficacious as high doses. Safety There was very low-certainty evidence for all safety outcomes (adverse events, serious adverse events, and withdrawal) across all antidepressants. We cannot draw any reliable conclusions from the NMAs for these outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review and NMAs show that despite studies investigating 25 different antidepressants, the only antidepressant we are certain about for the treatment of chronic pain is duloxetine. Duloxetine was moderately efficacious across all outcomes at standard dose. There is also promising evidence for milnacipran, although further high-quality research is needed to be confident in these conclusions. Evidence for all other antidepressants was low certainty. As RCTs excluded people with low mood, we were unable to establish the effects of antidepressants for people with chronic pain and depression. There is currently no reliable evidence for the long-term efficacy of any antidepressant, and no reliable evidence for the safety of antidepressants for chronic pain at any time point.

A randomized comparative study of methylcobalamin, methylcobalamin plus pregabalin and methylcobalamin plus duloxetine in patients of painful diabetic neuropathy

CONTEXT:

Diabetic neuropathy affects 10.5%–32.2% of diabetic population posing clinical burden onto society.

AIMS:

We aimed to study the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of methylcobalamin, methylcobalamin plus pregabalin, and methylcobalamin plus duloxetine in patients of painful diabetic neuropathy.

SETTINGS AND DESIGN:

It is a prospective, randomized, open-label, interventional, and parallel-group study done in patients of painful diabetic neuropathy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

A total of 100 patients were recruited and randomized to three study groups A, B, and C on methylcobalamin, methylcobalamin and pregabalin, and methylcobalamin and duloxetine, respectively. Patients were assessed at day 0 and 4, 8, and 12 weeks. The tuning fork test, monofilament test, Thermal Sensitivity testing, and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) were used to analyze vibration, pressure, thermal sensitivity, and pain.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED:

The results are expressed as mean ± standard deviation. Appropriate statistical methods were used to calculate P value (<0.05 – significant).

RESULTS:

The increase in number of patients with vibration perception is 11.6%, 37.9%, and 41.4%; pressure sensation is 7.6%, 37.9%, and 37.9%; and thermal sensitivity is 15.4%, 31.1%, and 37.9% in Groups A, B, and C, respectively. The decrease in VAS scores is 0.58 ± 0.14, 3.82 ± 0.05, and 4.17 ± 0.48 in Groups A, B, and C correspondingly. The adverse effects reported in Groups A, B, and C are 0%, 6.9%, and 10.3%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS:

Group C is more efficacious when compared to Groups A and B while Group B is safer.

Comparative Benefit-Risk Assessment for Lidocaine 700 mg Medicated Plaster and Pregabalin in Peripheral Neuropathic Pain Following a Structured Framework Approach

Introduction

Peripheral neuropathic pain (PNP) is difficult to treat. Several oral drugs are recommended as first-line treatments. Nevertheless, many patients cannot obtain sufficient pain relief or do not tolerate systemically active treatments. Topical treatments, with a lower risk of systemic side effects such as lidocaine 700 mg medicated plaster, are also recommended in treatment guidelines. This analysis compares the benefit–risk balance of topical 700 mg lidocaine medicated plaster with the benefit–risk balance of oral pregabalin administration for the treatment of PNP following current recommendations on benefit–risk assessment (BRA) methodology.

Methods

The Benefit–Risk Action Team (BRAT) framework was used as structured approach. Selection of key benefits and risks was supported by a patient survey. Published randomized controlled clinical trials were the main source to identify data related to key benefits and risks. The outcome of randomized clinical trials was compared with real-world evidence (RWE) data for consistency.

Results

Identified key benefits were pain reduction and improvement in quality of life. Key risks identified were application site reactions, dizziness, confusion, weight gain, peripheral edema, and blurred vision. Overall, there was similarity in key benefits between the comparators; however, a clear advantage regarding key risks in favor of lidocaine 700 mg medicated plaster was observed. This observation was consistent across data from a direct comparison trial, randomized placebo-controlled trials, as well as data from RWE studies. The low number of randomized controlled trials for lidocaine 700 mg medicated plaster was the main limitation.

Conclusion

Guided by the opinion of patients regarding key benefits and risks deemed important for treatments of peripheral neuropathic pain, our analysis showed that lidocaine 700 mg medicated plaster has a more favorable benefit–risk balance compared to pregabalin (300 and 600 mg daily).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40122-021-00340-2.