PEER systematic review of randomized controlled trials: Management of chronic neuropathic pain in primary care

Non-pharmacological management of neuropathic pain in older adults: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Neuropathic pain encompasses multiple diagnoses with detrimental impacts on quality of life and overall health. In older adults, pharmacological management is limited by adverse effects and drug interactions, while surgical management involves perioperative risk. Prior reviews addressing non-pharmacological interventions for neuropathic pain have not focused on this demographic. Therefore, this systematic review synthesizes the evidence regarding the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions in reducing neuropathic pain severity in older adults.

METHODS

PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, and PsycInfo were searched using key terms, with inclusion criteria of age ≥ 65, neuropathic pain, non-pharmacological intervention, pain severity measurement, English language, peer-reviewed, and either randomized controlled trial (RCT) or quasi-experimental design. In total, 2759 records were identified, with an additional 28 records identified by review of reference lists. After removal of duplicates, 2288 records were screened by title and abstract, 404 full-text articles were assessed, and 19 articles were critically reviewed and synthesized.

RESULTS

Of the 14 RCTs and 5 quasi-experimental studies included in the review, the most common intervention was electric and/or magnetic therapy, followed by acupuncture, mindfulness meditation, exercise, and light therapy. Several studies revealed both statistical and clinical significance, but conclusions were limited by small sample sizes and methodological shortcomings. The interventions were generally safe and acceptable.

CONCLUSIONS

Results should be interpreted with consideration of clinical vs statistical significance, mediators of pain severity, and individual variations in effectiveness. Further research should address multimodal and novel interventions, newer models of care, and technology-based interventions.

Therapeutic Strategies for Postherpetic Neuralgia: Mechanisms, Treatments, and Perspectives

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Postherpetic neuralgia is an annoying pain that mainly affects older people. In order to give patients more options, this review summarizes the pharmacological and interventional treatments for postherpetic neuralgia and updates the research on the efficacy, thereby providing doctors with more treatment options. The adverse effects and effective doses of its various treatments are also presented so that the therapy can be prescribed according to their concrete physical conditions. In a word, this review is dedicated to providing a comprehensive overview of the treatment options for postherpetic neuralgia and offering patients more choices.

RECENT FINDINGS

Combinational therapy is more excellent than monotherapy. The local anesthesia and gabapentin comprised outstanding compatibility. In addition, two therapeutic tools for PHN patients, especially for the intractable ones, electroacupuncture (EA), and osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT), show their efficacy and become potential options to alleviate pain. In terms of treatment, guidelines recommend patients use tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), gabapentin, pregabalin, and 5% lidocaine patches as the first-line medications, and gabapentin is investigated most, especially the gabapentin enacarbil (GEn). And drug efficacy can be limited by adverse effects and tolerated doses. Interventional treatments, with their invasiveness and operational difficulty, are usually considered for intractable patients. Combinational therapies may be used when a single therapy cannot achieve the desired effect. Therapies such as OMT and EA have also been proposed to palliate pain in some cases, and future directions of treatment may be investigated in Chinese medicine and acupuncture.

Opioids and opioid receptors; understanding pharmacological mechanisms as a key to therapeutic advances and mitigation of the misuse crisis

Opioids are a mainstay in acute pain management and produce their effects and side effects (e.g., tolerance, opioid-use disorder and immune suppression) by interaction with opioid receptors. I will discuss opioid pharmacology in some controversial areas of enquiry of anaesthetic relevance. The main opioid target is the µ (mu,MOP) receptor but other members of the opioid receptor family, δ (delta; DOP) and κ (kappa; KOP) opioid receptors also produce analgesic actions. These are naloxone-sensitive. There is important clinical development relating to the Nociceptin/Orphanin FQ (NOP) receptor, an opioid receptor that is not naloxone-sensitive. Better understanding of the drivers for opioid effects and side effects may facilitate separation of side effects and production of safer drugs. Opioids bind to the receptor orthosteric site to produce their effects and can engage monomer or homo-, heterodimer receptors. Some ligands can drive one intracellular pathway over another. This is the basis of biased agonism (or functional selectivity). Opioid actions at the orthosteric site can be modulated allosterically and positive allosteric modulators that enhance opioid action are in development. As well as targeting ligand-receptor interaction and transduction, modulating receptor expression and hence function is also tractable. There is evidence for epigenetic associations with different types of pain and also substance misuse. As long as the opioid narrative is defined by the 'opioid crisis' the drive to remove them could gather pace. This will deny use where they are effective, and access to morphine for pain relief in low income countries.

The power of integrating data: advancing pain research using meta-analysis

Publications related to pain research have increased significantly in recent years. The abundance of new evidence creates challenges staying up to date with the latest information. A comprehensive understanding of the literature is important for both clinicians and investigators involved in pain research. One commonly used method to combine and analyse data in health care research is meta-analysis. The primary aim of a meta-analysis is to quantitatively synthesise the results of multiple studies focused on the same research question. Meta-analysis is a powerful tool that can be used to advance pain research. However, there are inherent challenges when combining data from multiple sources. There are also numerous models and statistical considerations when undertaking a meta-analysis. This review aims to discuss the planning and preparation for completing a meta-analysis, review commonly used meta-analysis models, and evaluate the clinical implications of meta-analysis in pain research.

PEER simplified chronic pain guideline: Management of chronic low back, osteoarthritic, and neuropathic pain in primary care

OBJECTIVE

To develop a clinical practice guideline to support the management of chronic pain, including low back, osteoarthritic, and neuropathic pain in primary care.

METHODS

The guideline was developed with an emphasis on best available evidence and shared decision-making principles. Ten health professionals (4 generalist family physicians, 1 pain management-focused family physician, 1 anesthesiologist, 1 physical therapist, 1 pharmacist, 1 nurse practitioner, and 1 psychologist), a patient representative, and a nonvoting pharmacist and guideline methodologist comprised the Guideline Committee. Member selection was based on profession, practice setting, and lack of financial conflicts of interest. The guideline process was iterative in identification of key questions, evidence review, and development of guideline recommendations. Three systematic reviews, including a total of 285 randomized controlled trials, were completed. Randomized controlled trials were included only if they reported a responder analysis (eg, how many patients achieved a 30% or greater reduction in pain). The committee directed an Evidence Team (composed of evidence experts) to address an additional 11 complementary questions. Key recommendations were derived through committee consensus. The guideline and shared decision-making tools underwent extensive review by clinicians and patients before publication.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Physical activity is recommended as the foundation for managing osteoarthritis and chronic low back pain; evidence of benefit is unclear for neuropathic pain. Cognitive-behavioural therapy or mindfulness-based stress reduction are also suggested as options for managing chronic pain. Treatments for which there is clear, unclear, or no benefit are outlined for each condition. Treatments for which harms likely outweigh benefits for all or most conditions studied include opioids and cannabinoids.

CONCLUSION

This guideline for the management of chronic pain, including osteoarthritis, low back pain, and neuropathic pain, highlights best available evidence including both benefits and harms for a number of treatment interventions. A strong recommendation for exercise as the primary treatment for chronic osteoarthritic and low back pain is made based on demonstrated long-term evidence of benefit. This information is intended to assist with, not dictate, shared decision making with patients.