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

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.

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.

Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy

Diabetic painless and painful peripheral neuropathy remains the most frequent complication of diabetes mellitus, but the pathophysiology remains undescribed, there are no robust clinical endpoints and no efficient treatment exists. This hampers good clinical practice, fruitful clinical research and successful pharmacological trials, necessary for the development of early detection, prevention and treatment. This chapter supplies an update on background and treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Goals and perspectives for future clinical and scientific approaches are also described.

Management of diabetic neuropathy

Diabetic neuropathy is a neurodegenerative disorder that may alter both the somatic and autonomic peripheral nervous systems in the context of diabetes mellitus (DM). It is a prevalent and burdensome chronic complication of DM, that requires timely management. Optimized glycemic control (mainly for type 1 DM), multifactorial intervention (mainly for type 2 DM), with lifestyle intervention/physical exercise, and weight loss represent the basis of management for diabetic distal symmetrical polyneuropathy, and should be implemented early in the disease course. Despite better understanding of the pathogenetic mechanisms of diabetic peripheral neuropathy, there is still a stringent need for more pathogenetic-based agents that would significantly modify the natural history of the disease. The paper reviews the available drugs and current recommendations for the management of distal symmetrical polyneuropathy, including pain management, and for diabetic autonomic neuropathy. Evaluation of drug combinations that would perhaps be more efficient in slowing the progression of the disease or even reversing it, and that would provide a better pain management is still needed.

Pathogenesis, diagnosis and clinical management of diabetic sensorimotor peripheral neuropathy

Diabetic sensorimotor peripheral neuropathy (DSPN) is a serious complication of diabetes mellitus and is associated with increased mortality, lower-limb amputations and distressing painful neuropathic symptoms (painful DSPN). Our understanding of the pathophysiology of the disease has largely been derived from animal models, which have identified key potential mechanisms. However, effective therapies in preclinical models have not translated into clinical trials and we have no universally accepted disease-modifying treatments. Moreover, the condition is generally diagnosed late when irreversible nerve damage has already taken place. Innovative point-of-care devices have great potential to enable the early diagnosis of DSPN when the condition might be more amenable to treatment. The management of painful DSPN remains less than optimal; however, studies suggest that a mechanism-based approach might offer an enhanced benefit in certain pain phenotypes. The management of patients with DSPN involves the control of individualized cardiometabolic targets, a multidisciplinary approach aimed at the prevention and management of foot complications, and the timely diagnosis and management of neuropathic pain. Here, we discuss the latest advances in the mechanisms of DSPN and painful DSPN, originating both from the periphery and the central nervous system, as well as the emerging diagnostics and treatments.

Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy: Diagnosis and Treatment

BACKGROUND

Diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) is traditionally divided into large and small fibre neuropathy (SFN). Damage to the large fibres can be detected using nerve conduction studies (NCS) and often results in a significant reduction in sensitivity and loss of protective sensation, while damage to the small fibres is hard to reliably detect and can be either asymptomatic, associated with insensitivity to noxious stimuli, or often manifests itself as intractable neuropathic pain.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the recent advances in both detection, grading, and treatment of DPN as well as the accompanying neuropathic pain.

METHODS

A review of relevant, peer-reviewed, English literature from MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library between January 1st 1967 and January 1st 2020 was used.

RESULTS

We identified more than three hundred studies on methods for detecting and grading DPN, and more than eighty randomised-controlled trials for treating painful diabetic neuropathy.

CONCLUSION

NCS remains the method of choice for detecting LFN in people with diabetes, while a gold standard for the detection of SFN is yet to be internationally accepted. In the recent years, several methods with huge potential for detecting and grading this condition have become available including skin biopsies and corneal confocal microscopy, which in the future could represent reliable endpoints for clinical studies. While several newer methods for detecting SFN have been developed, no new drugs have been accepted for treating neuropathic pain in people with diabetes. Tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors and anticonvulsants remain first line treatment, while newer agents targeting the proposed pathophysiology of DPN are being developed.

Diabetic Polyneuropathy - Advances in Diagnosis and Intervention Strategies

Over half of people with diabetes mellitus develop diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN), which is a major cause of reduced quality of life due to disabling neuropathic pain, sensory loss, gait instability, fall-related injury, and foot ulceration and amputation. The latter represents a major health and economic burden, with lower limb amputation rates related to diabetes increasing in the UK. There is a need for early diagnosis of DPN so that early management strategies may be instigated, such as achieving tight glucose control and management of cardiovascular risk factors, in an attempt to slow its progression. To this end, a one-stop microvascular assessment involving a combined eye, foot and renal screening clinic has proven feasible in the UK. Unfortunately, there are currently no approved disease-modifying therapies for DPN. Some disease-modifying agents have demonstrated efficacy, but further large trials using appropriate clinical endpoints are required before these treatments can be routinely recommended. There has been emerging evidence highlighting a reduction in vitamin D levels in cases of painful DPN and the potential for vitamin D supplementation in deficient individuals to improve neuropathic pain; however, this needs to be proved in randomised clinical trials. The use of established agents for neuropathic pain in DPN is limited by poor efficacy and adverse effects, but patient stratification using methods such as pain phenotyping are being tested to determine whether this improves the outcomes of such agents in clinical studies. In addition, innovative approaches such as the topical 8% capsaicin patch, new methods of electrical stimulation and novel therapeutic targets such as NaV1.7 offer promise for the future. This article aims to discuss the challenges of diagnosing and managing DPN and to review current and emerging lifestyle interventions and therapeutic options.

Diabetic Neuropathy Is a Substantial Burden in People With Type 1 Diabetes and Is Strongly Associated With Socioeconomic Disadvantage: A Population-Representative Study From Scotland

OBJECTIVE

To assess the contemporaneous prevalence of diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in Scotland and study its cross-sectional association with risk factors and other diabetic complications.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We analyzed data from a large representative sample of adults with T1D (N = 5,558). We assessed the presence of symptomatic neuropathy using the dichotomized (≥4) Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument Patient Questionnaire score. Logistic regression models were used to investigate associations between DPN and risk factors, as well as with other complications.

RESULTS

The burden of DPN is substantial with 13% prevalence overall. Adjusting for attained age, diabetes duration, and sex, the odds of DPN increased mainly with waist-to-hip ratio, lipids, poor glycemic control (odds ratio 1.51 [95% CI 1.21-1.89] for levels of 75 vs. 53 mmol/mol), ever versus never smoking (1.67 [1.37-2.03]), and worse renal function (1.96 [1.03-3.74] for estimated glomerular filtration rate levels <30 vs. ≥90 mL/min/1.73 m²). The odds significantly decreased with higher HDL cholesterol (0.77 [0.66-0.89] per mmol/L). Living in more deprived areas was associated with DPN (2.17 [1.78-2.65]) for more versus less deprived areas adjusted for other risk factors. Finally, individuals with prevalent DPN were much more likely than others to have other diabetes complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Diabetic neuropathy remains substantial, particularly affecting those in the most socioeconomically deprived groups. Those with clinically manifest neuropathy also have a higher burden of other complications and elevated levels of modifiable risk factors. These data suggest that there is considerable scope to reduce neuropathy rates and narrow the socioeconomic differential by better risk factor control.

Diabetic Neuropathy Collection: Treatment of Diabetic Neuropathy

Video: Treatment of Diabetic Neuropathy podcast recording (MP4 61908 kb).

A systematic review on the mechanisms of vitamin K effects on the complications of diabetes and pre-diabetes

Diabetes mellitus and pre-diabetes are prevalent endocrine disorders associated with substantial morbidity and premature mortality. Vitamin K is known to have several beneficial effects on complications of diabetes and pre-diabetes. However, systematic consolidation of evidence is required to quantify these effects in order to inform clinical practice and research. A systematic search in PubMed, Scopus, Embase, ProQuest, and Google Scholar databases was undertaken from database inception up to October 2018 to evaluate functional roles of different forms of vitamin K on diabetes and pre-diabetes. From 3,734 identified records, nine articles met the inclusion criteria and were evaluated. Vitamin K supplementation was found to be associated with significant reductions in blood glucose (six studies), increased fasting serum insulin (four studies), reduced hemoglobin A1c (three studies), reduced homeostatic model assessment-insulin resistance index (HOMA-IR) (two studies), and increased ß-cell function (two studies) in diabetic animal studies. Following 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test, vitamin K supplementation was observed to be effective in reducing blood glucose and insulin levels in the pre-diabetic population. However, no evidence of effect was observed for fasting blood sugar, insulin, HOMA-IR, and homeostatic model assessment-β-cell function index (two studies). A statistically significant effect was also noted with vitamin K in improving dyslipidemia (three studies) as well as oxidative stress and inflammatory markers (five studies) in diabetic animals. In conclusion, clinical trials and animal studies confirm that vitamin K supplementation may improve both clinical features and complications of diabetes and pre-diabetes. However, quantification of clinical efficacy in the pre-diabetic population and among individuals with comorbidities requires further investigation.