Gabapentin versus nortriptyline in post-herpetic neuralgia patients: a randomized, double-blind clinical trial – The GONIP 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.

The safety and efficacy of gabapentinoids in the management of neuropathic pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

There are increasing concerns regarding the abusive potential of gabapentinoids putting at risk patients with neuropathic pain requiring long-term pain management. The evidence to support this is rather inconcusive.

AIM

This systematic review aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of gabapentinoids in the management of neuropathic pain with a focus on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and categorising the side effects according to the body systems they were affecting.

METHOD

Searches were conducted in MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Web of Science, PsycoINFO, and CINAHL (EBSCO), and included RCTs to identify and critically appraise studies investigating safety and therapeutic effects of gabapentionoids in adults with neuropathic pain. Data extraction was conducted using an established Cochrane form and the risk-of-bias tool was used in the assessment of quality.

RESULTS

50 studies (12,398 participants) were included. The majority of adverse events pertained to the nervous system (7 effects) or psychiatric (3 effects) disorders. There were more adverse effects reported with pregabalin (36 effects) than with gabapentin (22 effects). Six pregabalin studies reported euphoria as a side effect, while no studies reported euphoria with gabapentin. This was the only side effect that may correlate with addictive potential. Gabapentioids were reported to significantly reduce pain compared to placebo.

CONCLUSION

Despite RCTs documenting the adverse events of gabapentionoids on the nervous system, there was no evidence of gabapentinoid use leading to addiction, suggesting an urgent need to design studies investigating their abusive potential.

Efficacy and tolerability of nortriptyline in the management of neuropathic corneal pain

PURPOSE

Neuropathic corneal pain (NCP) is a recently acknowledged disease entity. However, there is no consensus in potential treatment strategies, particularly in patients with a centralized component of pain. This study aims to assess the efficacy and tolerability of the tricyclic antidepressant, nortriptyline, among NCP patients.

METHODS

Patients with clinically diagnosed NCP and a centralized component of pain, treated with oral nortriptyline, who had recorded pain scores as assessed by the ocular pain assessment survey at the first and last visit were included. Patients were excluded if they had any other ocular pathology that might result in pain or had less than 4 weeks of nortriptyline use. Demographics, time between visits, concomitant medications, systemic and ocular co-morbidities, duration of NCP, side effects, ocular pain scores, and quality of life (QoL) assessment were recorded.

RESULTS

Thirty patients with a mean age of 53.1 ± 18.5 were included. Male to female ratio was 8:22. Mean ocular pain in the past 24 h improved from 5.7 ± 2.1 to 3.6 ± 2.1 after 10.5 ± 9.1 months (p < 0.0001). Twelve patients (40.0%) had equal to or more than 50% improvement, 6 patients (20.0%) had 30-49% improvement, 6 patients (20.0%) had 1-29% improvement, 4 patients (13.3%) did not improve, while 2 patients (6.7%) reported increase in pain levels. Mean QoL improved from 6.0 ± 2.5 to 4.3 ± 2.4 (p = 0.019). Eight patients (26.6%) discontinued treatment due to persistent side effects, despite improvement by 22.4%.

CONCLUSION

Nortriptyline was effective in relieving NCP symptoms in patients with centralized component and insufficient response to other systemic and topical therapies who tolerated the drug for at least 4 weeks. Nortriptyline may be used in the management of patients with NCP.

Oral pharmacotherapeutics for the management of peripheral neuropathic pain conditions - a review of clinical trials

INTRODUCTION

Epidemiological studies have shown that 6.9-10% of people suffer from neuropathic pain, a complex painful condition which is often undertreated. Data regarding the effectiveness of treatment options for patients with neuropathic pain is inconsistent, and there is no single treatment option that shows cost-effectiveness across studies.

AREAS COVERED

In this narrative review, the authors present the results of different prospective, randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses assessing the effects of different oral medications in the management of various peripheral neuropathic pain conditions. The authors discuss the effectiveness of commonly used oral medications such as voltage-gated calcium channels antagonists, voltage-gated sodium channel antagonists, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, NMDA antagonists, and medications with other mechanisms of action.

EXPERT OPINION

Most of the presented medications were more effective than placebo; however, when compared to each other, none of them were significantly superior. The heterogeneity of the studies looking into different oral neuropathic conditions has been the major issue that prevents us from making stronger recommendations. There are multiple reasons including high placebo responsiveness, improperly treated underlying comorbidities (particularly anxiety and depression), and inter-patient variability. Different sensory phenotypes should also be taken into consideration when designing future clinical trials for neuropathic pain.

Comparison of Efficacy of Nortriptyline Versus Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation on Painful Peripheral Neuropathy in Patients with Diabetes

Background and aims: Diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP) is one of the most common complications of diabetes and is difficult to treat. Existing treatments are often inadequate at controlling pain and limited by side-effects and drug tolerance. This study assessed the efficacy of nortriptyline versus Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) in patients with DPNP.

Material and method: This is a randomized clinical trial study conducted on 39 patients with DPNP referring to Golestan Hospital in Ahvaz in 2017. Patients were randomly treated with TENS (18 sessions, each session 30 minutes; n=20) or nortriptyline (25 to 75 mg, once daily; n=19) for 6 weeks. Patients were evaluated for side effects and pain relief using visual analog scale (VAS).

Results: There was a significant improvement in pain with both treatments compared with baseline (p˂0.001). The patients in nortriptyline group experienced more pain relief (7.21±1.51 to 0.84±1.34) than the TENS group (7.6±1.47 to 2.75 ±2.43) (P=0.001). The 50% pain relief was observed in 14 patients (73%) in nortriptyline group, 6 patients (30%) in TENS group. Moreover, the side effects were seen in 15% of TENS and 55% of patients in nortriptyline groups (P=0.019).

Conclusion: Both TENS and nortriptyline were effective and safe in the management of DPNP. But nortriptyline showed a better performance on pain relief.

A critical appraisal of gabapentinoids for pain in cancer patients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Gabapentinoids are frequently used in the management of cancer pain. In recent Cochrane systematic reviews, although there was an abundance of evidence relating to non-cancer pain, only a few studies related to cancer pain. This review summarizes recent randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the use of gabapentinoids for tumour-related (as monotherapy or part of combination therapy) and treatment-related pain.

RECENT FINDINGS

For tumour-related pain, ten out of thirteen studies showed statistically significant benefits in favour of gabapentinoids. When used, as part of monotherapy or combination therapy, benefits were observed in five out of six studies evaluating gabapentin, and in six out of eight studies evaluating pregabalin. For treatment-related pain, none of the four studies (two gabapentin, two pregabalin) showed statistically significant benefits in favour of gabapentinoids. Unfortunately, many of the studies included were limited by small sample size, lack of blinding, and inadequate follow-up.

SUMMARY

More and better quality studies are required, although it may be challenging to accomplish in this patient population. Gabapentinoids may offer benefits to cancer patients with pain, but careful titration and monitoring of adverse effects is necessary.

An Evaluation of Efficacy and Safety of Commonly Prescribed Drugs and Effect of These Drugs on Quality of Sleep in Patients Suffering From Zoster-Associated Pain

This observational, prospective, single-center study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of commonly prescribed drugs for zoster-associated pain and their impact on quality of sleep at a tertiary care hospital in western India. Patients ≥18 years of age, newly diagnosed with zoster-associated pain were evaluated on days 0, 7, 14, 30, 60, 90, 120, 150, and 180 or until resolution of pain, whichever was earlier, using the Wong Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale, Neuropathic Pain Scale, and Insomnia Severity Index for intensity of pain, quality of pain, and quality of sleep, respectively. A total of 78 patients (46.0 [16.3] years) completed the study. They received nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (65), gabapentin (30), amitriptyline (27), and amitriptyline + gabapentin (21) for mean durations of 7.7 (3.0), 89.2 (7.2), 107.6 (46.3), and 104.5 (46) days, respectively. Improvement in the Wong Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale and Neuropathic Pain Scale score was similar among treatment groups except for a greater fall in Wong Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale score at days 7 and 120 and that in deep pain score at day 7 in combination treatment group vs the amitriptyline group. Clinically significant insomnia was detected in 35 patients at baseline and demonstrated progressive and similar improvement among groups. Treatment modification was required in 20 patients. Zoster-associated pain resolved in 69 patients. Nine adverse drug reactions, mostly mild, nonserious, and nonpreventable, were reported. To conclude, drugs commonly used for zoster-associated pain are effective and well tolerated. These have a similar effect on pain and quality of sleep, except for a possible greater effect of combination treatment in the early phase of intense and deep pain.

Use of antidepressants in dentistry: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Previous research has suggested that antidepressants can be used in oral health care. The aim of this systematic review was to search for scientific evidence of the efficacy of the use of antidepressants in dentistry.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The clinical question was as follows (PICO question): dentistry patients (Patients); antidepressants (Intervention); no use or placebo or other drug (Comparison); and efficacy in oral health problems (Outcome). An electronic search was conducted in seven databases, as well as a manual search without restriction regarding language and date of publication. Two independent reviewers selected studies based on eligibility criteria, extracted data and assessed methodological quality based on the PEDro scale. The PROSPERO record is number CRD42016037442.

RESULTS

A total of 15 randomized controlled trials were associated with the use of antidepressants to control chronic or acute pain in dentistry, among other conditions such as bruxism and burning mouth syndrome. The most commonly used drug in clinical trials was amitriptyline (more than 50% of studies).

CONCLUSIONS

Antidepressants may be effective in dentistry for acute and chronic pain, but there is a large amount of methodological heterogeneity among the evaluated studies. In summary, there is rationality for the indication of this class of medicine in dentistry in specific clinical situations.

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.

Nortriptyline for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Antidepressants are widely used to treat chronic neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage), usually in doses below those at which they exert antidepressant effects. An earlier review that included all antidepressants for neuropathic pain is being replaced by new reviews of individual drugs examining individual neuropathic pain conditions.Nortriptyline is a tricyclic antidepressant that is occasionally used for treating neuropathic pain, and is recommended in European, UK, and USA guidelines.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE from inception to 7 January 2015, and the reference lists of retrieved papers and other reviews. We also searched two clinical trials databases for ongoing or unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind studies of at least two weeks' duration comparing nortriptyline with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain. Participants were adults aged 18 years and over. We included only full journal publication articles and clinical trial summaries.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality. We considered the evidence using three tiers. First tier evidence 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 dropouts; at least 200 participants in the comparison, 8 to 12 weeks' duration, parallel design); second tier evidence from data that failed to meet one or more of these criteria and were 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 was considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both.We planned to calculate risk ratio (RR) and numbers needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) and harmful outcome (NNH) using standard methods expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six studies treating 310 participants (mean or median age 49 to 64 years) with various neuropathic pain conditions. Five studies used a cross-over design, and one used a parallel-group design; 272 participants were randomised to treatment with nortriptyline, 145 to placebo, 94 to gabapentin, 56 to gabapentin plus nortriptyline, 55 to morphine, 55 to morphine plus nortriptyline, 39 to chlorimipramine, and 33 to amitriptyline. Treatment periods lasted from three to eight weeks. All studies had one or more sources of potential major bias.No study provided first or second tier evidence for any outcome. Only one study reported our primary outcome of people with at least 50% reduction in pain. There was no indication that either nortriptyline or gabapentin was more effective in postherpetic neuralgia (very low quality evidence). Two studies reported the number of people with at least moderate pain relief, and one reported the number who were satisfied with their pain relief and had tolerable adverse effects. We considered these outcomes to be equivalent to our other primary outcome of Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) much or very much improved.We could not pool data, but third tier evidence in individual studies indicated similar efficacy to other active interventions (gabapentin, morphine, chlorimipramine, and amitriptyline), and to placebo in the conditions studied (very low quality evidence). Adverse event reporting was inconsistent and fragmented. More participants reported adverse events with nortriptyline than with placebo, similar numbers with nortriptyline and other antidepressants (amitriptyline and chlorimipramine) and gabapentin, and slightly more with morphine (very low quality evidence). No study reported any serious adverse events or deaths.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found little evidence to support the use of nortriptyline to treat the neuropathic pain conditions included in this review. There were no studies in the treatment of trigeminal neuralgia. The studies were methodologically flawed, largely due to small size, and potentially subject to major bias. The results of this review do not support the use of nortriptyline as a first line treatment. Effective medicines with much greater supportive evidence are available, such as duloxetine and pregabalin.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of pharmacological therapies for pain associated with postherpetic neuralgia and less common neuropathic conditions

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the relative efficacy of pharmacological therapies for the treatment of postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), multiple sclerosis (MS)-related pain, posttraumatic pain, central poststroke pain (CPSP) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-related neuropathic pain (NeP).

METHODS

This systematic review (through June 2011) identified randomised, controlled trials of treatments for these conditions. Bayesian mixed treatment comparison (MTC) methods were used to determine the relative efficacy and safety among the treatments within each pain condition.

RESULTS

Fifty studies were identified: 33 PHN, 2 MS-related pain, 3 CPSP, 3 posttraumatic pain and 9 HIV-related NeP. Data from 28 PHN studies including 21 interventions and 4317 patients were included into the PHN MTC. Of treatments studied in ≥ 50 patients, opioids had the greatest mean pain reduction of -1.70 vs. placebo on an 11-point numeric rating scale. Pregabalin ≥ 300 mg/day was most effective for ≥ 30% and ≥ 50% pain reduction [relative risk (RR) vs. placebo = 2.44 and 2.13, respectively]. Data identified for MS-related pain, CPSP, posttraumatic pain and HIV-related NeP were sparse; only 7 of 17 studies had ≥ 50 patients. Adverse events (AEs) and discontinuations for most treatments were not significantly greater than placebo except in PHN, where 8 of 12 treatments had higher risks of AEs compared with placebo and tricyclic antidepressants and opioids had higher risk of discontinuation compared with placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Guideline-recommended treatments for PHN were more effective than placebo on the pain NRS and for ≥ 30% and ≥ 50% pain reduction. Although guidelines exist for the management of less common NeP conditions, little published evidence supports them. These results highlight the need for additional evaluations and more complete reporting of outcomes to help guide physicians' treatment selections.

Gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

This review is an update of a review published in 2011, itself a major update of previous reviews published in 2005 and 2000, investigating the effects of gabapentin in chronic neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage). Antiepileptic drugs are used to manage chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

We identified randomised trials of gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia by searching the databases MEDLINE (1966 to March 2014), EMBASE (1980 to 2014 week 10), and CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library (Issue 3 of 12, 2014). We obtained clinical trial reports and synopses of published and unpublished studies from Internet sources, and searched Clinicaltrials.gov. Searches were run originally in 2011 and the date of the most recent search was 17 March 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind studies reporting the analgesic and adverse effects of gabapentin in neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia with assessment of pain intensity, pain relief, or both, using validated scales. Participants were adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently extracted efficacy and adverse event data, examined issues of study quality, and assessed risk of bias. We performed analysis using three tiers of evidence. First tier evidence 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 dropouts; at least 200 participants in the comparison, 8 to 12 weeks duration, parallel design), second tier from data that failed to meet one or more of these criteria and were considered at some risk of bias but with adequate numbers in the comparison, and third tier from data involving small numbers of participants that were considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both.For efficacy, we calculated the number needed to treat to benefit (NNT), concentrating on at least 50% pain intensity reduction, and Initiative on Methods, Measurement and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) definitions of at least moderate and substantial benefit. For harm we calculated number needed to treat for harm (NNH) for adverse effects and withdrawal. Meta-analysis was undertaken using a fixed-effect model. We emphasised differences between conditions now defined as neuropathic pain, and other conditions like masticatory pain, complex regional painsyndrome type 1 (CRPS-1), and fibromyalgia.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven new studies with 1919 participants were added. Another report (147 participants) provided results for a study already included, but which previously had no usable data. A further report (170 participants) used an experimental formulation of intrathecal gabapentin. Thirty-seven studies (5633 participants) studied oral gabapentin at daily doses of 1200 mg or more in 12 chronic pain conditions; 84% of participants were in studies of postherpetic neuralgia, painful diabetic neuropathy or mixed neuropathic pain. There was no first tier evidence.Second tier evidence for the outcome of at least 50% pain intensity reduction, considered valuable by patients with chronic pain, showed that gabapentin was significantly better than placebo in postherpetic neuralgia (34% gabapentin versus 21% placebo; NNT 8.0, 95% CI 6.0 to 12) and painful diabetic neuropathy (38% versus 21%, NNT 5.9, 95% CI 4.6 to 8.3). There was insufficient information in other pain conditions to reach any reliable conclusion. There was no obvious difference between standard gabapentin formulations and recently-introduced extended-release or gastro-retentive formulations, or between different doses of gabapentin.Adverse events occurred significantly more often with gabapentin. Persons taking gabapentin could expect to have at least one adverse event (62%), withdraw because of an adverse event (11%), suffer dizziness (19%), somnolence (14%), peripheral oedema (7%), and gait disturbance (9%). Serious adverse events (3%) were no more common than with placebo.There were insufficient data for direct comparisons with other active treatments, and only third tier evidence for other painful conditions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was no top tier evidence that was unequivocally unbiased. Second tier evidence, with potentially important residual biases, showed that gabapentin at doses of 1200 mg or more was effective for some people with some painful neuropathic pain conditions. 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. About 35% achieved this degree of pain relief with gabapentin, compared with 21% for placebo. Over half of those treated with gabapentin will not have worthwhile pain relief. Results might vary between different neuropathic pain conditions, and the amount of evidence for gabapentin in neuropathic pain conditions except postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy, and in fibromyalgia, is very limited.The levels of efficacy found for gabapentin are consistent with those found for other drug therapies in postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy.

Gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

This review is an update of a review published in 2011, itself a major update of previous reviews published in 2005 and 2000, investigating the effects of gabapentin in chronic neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage). Antiepileptic drugs are used to manage chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

We identified randomised trials of gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia by searching the databases MEDLINE (1966 to March 2014), EMBASE (1980 to 2014 week 10), and CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library (Issue 3 of 12, 2014). We obtained clinical trial reports and synopses of published and unpublished studies from Internet sources, and searched Clinicaltrials.gov. Searches were run originally in 2011 and the date of the most recent search was 17 March 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind studies reporting the analgesic and adverse effects of gabapentin in neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia with assessment of pain intensity, pain relief, or both, using validated scales. Participants were adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently extracted efficacy and adverse event data, examined issues of study quality, and assessed risk of bias. We performed analysis using three tiers of evidence. First tier evidence 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 dropouts; at least 200 participants in the comparison, 8 to 12 weeks duration, parallel design), second tier from data that failed to meet one or more of these criteria and were considered at some risk of bias but with adequate numbers in the comparison, and third tier from data involving small numbers of participants that were considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both.For efficacy, we calculated the number needed to treat to benefit (NNT), concentrating on at least 50% pain intensity reduction, and Initiative on Methods, Measurement and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) definitions of at least moderate and substantial benefit. For harm we calculated number needed to treat for harm (NNH) for adverse effects and withdrawal. Meta-analysis was undertaken using a fixed-effect model. We emphasised differences between conditions now defined as neuropathic pain, and other conditions like masticatory pain, complex regional painsyndrome type 1 (CRPS-1), and fibromyalgia.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven new studies with 1919 participants were added. Another report (147 participants) provided results for a study already included, but which previously had no usable data. A further report (170 participants) used an experimental formulation of intrathecal gabapentin. Thirty-seven studies (5633 participants) studied oral gabapentin at daily doses of 1200 mg or more in 12 chronic pain conditions; 84% of participants were in studies of postherpetic neuralgia, painful diabetic neuropathy or mixed neuropathic pain. There was no first tier evidence.Second tier evidence for the outcome of at least 50% pain intensity reduction, considered valuable by patients with chronic pain, showed that gabapentin was significantly better than placebo in postherpetic neuralgia (34% gabapentin versus 21% placebo; NNT 8.0, 95% CI 6.0 to 12) and painful diabetic neuropathy (38% versus 21%, NNT 5.9, 95% CI 4.6 to 8.3). There was insufficient information in other pain conditions to reach any reliable conclusion. There was no obvious difference between standard gabapentin formulations and recently-introduced extended-release or gastro-retentive formulations, or between different doses of gabapentin.Adverse events occurred significantly more often with gabapentin. Persons taking gabapentin could expect to have at least one adverse event (62%), withdraw because of an adverse event (11%), suffer dizziness (19%), somnolence (14%), peripheral oedema (7%), and gait disturbance (9%). Serious adverse events (3%) were no more common than with placebo.There were insufficient data for direct comparisons with other active treatments, and only third tier evidence for other painful conditions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was no top tier evidence that was unequivocally unbiased. Second tier evidence, with potentially important residual biases, showed that gabapentin at doses of 1200 mg or more was effective for some people with some painful neuropathic pain conditions. 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. About 35% achieved this degree of pain relief with gabapentin, compared with 21% for placebo. Over half of those treated with gabapentin will not have worthwhile pain relief. Results might vary between different neuropathic pain conditions, and the amount of evidence for gabapentin in neuropathic pain conditions except postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy, and in fibromyalgia, is very limited.The levels of efficacy found for gabapentin are consistent with those found for other drug therapies in postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy.

Therapeutic options for the treatment of postherpetic neuralgia: a systematic review

Postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) is a chronic and painful condition that may result in significant disturbances to normal activities and decreases in the quality of life for those affected. Despite the availability of several first- and second-line treatment options, many patients may experience refractory pain. The objectives of this review were to summarize evidence for Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved and off-label therapies for the treatment of PHN and to present gaps in the current literature for future research focus. Several agents, including pregabalin, gabapentin, and opioids, have been shown to significantly improve pain when compared with placebo. However, evidence regarding the comparative effectiveness of these treatment alternatives is lacking. In order to choose the optimal treatment, providers should consider issues related to efficacy, safety, and tolerability in conjunction with patient goals, preferences, and adherence issues. Evidence from randomized or observational studies that directly compare agents with each other should help to inform treatment choices.

Implications and mechanism of action of gabapentin in neuropathic pain

Gabapentin is an anti-epileptic agent but now it is also recommended as first line agent in neuropathic pain, particularly in diabetic neuropathy and post herpetic neuralgia. α2δ-1, an auxillary subunit of voltage gated calcium channels, has been documented as its main target and its specific binding to this subunit is described to produce different actions responsible for pain attenuation. The binding to α2δ-1 subunits inhibits nerve injury-induced trafficking of α1 pore forming units of calcium channels (particularly N-type) from cytoplasm to plasma membrane (membrane trafficking) of pre-synaptic terminals of dorsal root ganglion (DRG) neurons and dorsal horn neurons. Furthermore, the axoplasmic transport of α2δ-1 subunits from DRG to dorsal horns neurons in the form of anterograde trafficking is also inhibited in response to gabapentin administration. Gabapentin has also been shown to induce modulate other targets including transient receptor potential channels, NMDA receptors, protein kinase C and inflammatory cytokines. It may also act on supra-spinal region to stimulate noradrenaline mediated descending inhibition, which contributes to its anti-hypersensitivity action in neuropathic pain.

Management of painful neuropathies

Neuropathic pain is the most common type of pain in neuropathy. In painful polyneuropathies the pain usually has a "glove and stocking" distribution. The pain may be predominantly spontaneous, e.g., with a burning, pricking, or shooting character or characterized by evoked pain such as mechanical or cold allodynia. In the clinical setting, the prevention of painful neuropathies and treatment of underlying neuropathy remains inadequate and thus symptomatic treatment of the pain and related disability needs to be offered. Most randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) published in painful neuropathy have been conducted in patients with diabetes and to what extent a treatment which is found effective in painful diabetic polyneuropathy can be expected to relieve other conditions like chemotherapy- or HIV-induced neuropathy is unknown. Tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), gabapentin, pregabalin, and serotonin noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) are first drug choices. In patients with localized neuropathic pain, a topical lidocaine patch may also be considered. Second-line treatments are tramadol and other opioids. New types of treatment include botulinum toxin type A (BTX-A), high-dose capsaicin patches, and cannabinoids. Other types of anticonvulsant drugs such as lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine, and lacosamide have a more questionable efficacy in painful polyneuropathy but may have an effect in a subgroup of patients. Combination therapy may be considered in patients with insufficient effect from one drug. Treatment is usually a trial-and-error process and has to be individualized to the single patient, taking into account all comorbidities such as possible concomitant depression, anxiety, diseases, and drug interactions. Side-effects to antidepressants include dry mouth, nausea, constipation, orthostatic hypotension, and sedation. ECG should always be obtained prior to treatment with TCAs, which also should not be used in patients with cardiac incompensation and epilepsy. The most common side-effects of gabapentin and pregabalin are CNS-related side-effects with dizziness and somnolence. Peripheral edema, weight gain, nausea, vertigo, asthenia, dry mouth, and ataxia may also occur. Topical treatments are better tolerated due to lack of systemic side-effects but there is still limited evidence for the long-term efficacy of these drugs. With available drugs, the average pain reduction is about 20-30%, and only 20-35% of the patients will achieve at least 50% pain reduction, which stresses the need of a multidisciplinary approach to pain treatment.

Antidepressant drugs

Therapeutic Reviews aim to provide essential independent information for health professionals about drugs used in palliative and hospice care. Additional content is available on www.palliativedrugs.com. Country-specific books (Hospice and Palliative Care Formulary USA, and Palliative Care Formulary, British and Canadian editions) are also available and can be ordered from www.palliativedrugs.com. The series editors welcome feedback on the articles (hq@palliativedrugs.com).

Post-herpetic neuralgia

Background

In spite of the large body of evidence available in the literature, definition and treatment of Post-Herpetic Neuralgia (PHN) are still lacking a consistent and universally recognized standardization. Furthermore, many issues concerning diagnosis, prediction and prevention of PHN need to be clarified in view of recent contributions.

Objectives

To assess whether PHN may be better defined, predicted, treated and prevented in light of recent data, and whether available alternative or adjunctive therapies may improve pain relief in treatment recalcitrant PHN.

Methods

Systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, cohort studies and protocols were searched; the search sources included PubMed, Cochrane Library, NICE, and DARE. More than 130 papers were selected and evaluated.

Results

Diagnosis of PHN is essentially clinical, but it can be improved by resorting to the many tools available, including some practical and accessible questionnaires. Prediction of PHN can be now much more accurate, taking into consideration a few well validated clinical and anamnestic variables. Treatment of PHN is presently based on a well characterized array of drugs and drug associations, including, among others, tricyclic antidepressants, gabapentinoids, opioids and many topical formulations. It is still unsatisfactory, however, in a substantial proportion of patients, especially those with many comorbidities and intense pain at herpes zoster (HZ) presentation, so that this frequent complication of HZ still strongly impacts on the quality of life of affected patients.

Conclusion

Further efforts are needed to improve the management of PHN. Potentially relevant interventions may include early antiviral therapy of acute HZ, prevention of HZ by adult vaccination, as well as new therapeutic approaches for patients experiencing PHN.

Anti-epileptic drugs

Therapeutic Reviews aim to provide essential independent information for health professionals about drugs used in palliative and hospice care. Additional content is available on www.palliativedrugs.com. Country-specific books (Hospice and Palliative Care Formulary USA, and Palliative Care Formulary, British and Canadian editions) are also available and can be ordered from www.palliativedrugs.com. The series editors welcome feedback on the articles (hq@palliativedrugs.com).

Safety of nortriptyline at equivalent therapeutic doses for smoking cessation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The limited use of nortriptyline for smoking cessation is likely due to concerns about its serious adverse effects.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the safety of nortriptyline at doses equivalent to those used in aiding smoking cessation.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic search of relevant articles in MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, PsychINFO, WHO publications and the Clinical Trials database (through November 2008).

STUDY SELECTION

All studies of nortriptyline at doses between 75 and 100 mg in any indication were reviewed.

DATA EXTRACTION

The quality of included studies was assessed based on the Jadad score. Data were extracted using a data extraction form.

DATA SYNTHESIS

From 442 potentially relevant articles identified, 17 studies met our selection criteria and were included for data analysis. Indications for nortriptyline in these studies were smoking cessation (eight studies), depression (five studies), neuropathic pain (three studies) and schizophrenia (one study). 2885 individuals participated in these studies, with exposure time ranging between 4 and 12 weeks. The major comparator used in these trials was placebo. Overall, no life-threatening events occurred in these studies. Orthostatic hypotension was significantly higher in nortriptyline users than in comparator groups (relative risk 2.8; 95% CI 1.4, 5.3). Other adverse events significantly associated with nortriptyline were anticholinergic-related effects including drowsiness, dizziness, gastrointestinal disturbance and dysgeusia.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence suggests that nortriptyline, at doses between 75 and 100 mg, is not significantly associated with serious adverse events when administered in patients without underlying cardiovascular disease.

Gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

This review updates parts of two earlier Cochrane reviews investigating effects of gabapentin in chronic neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage). Antiepileptic drugs are used to manage pain, predominantly for chronic neuropathic pain, especially when the pain is lancinating or burning.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the analgesic effectiveness and adverse effects of gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain management.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We identified randomised trials of gabapentin in acute, chronic or cancer pain from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL. We obtained clinical trial reports and synopses of published and unpublished studies from Internet sources. The date of the most recent search was January 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind studies reporting the analgesic and adverse effects of gabapentin in neuropathic pain with assessment of pain intensity and/or pain relief, using validated scales. Participants were adults aged 18 and over.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data. We calculated numbers needed to treat to benefit (NNTs), concentrating on IMMPACT (Initiative on Methods, Measurement and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials) definitions of at least moderate and substantial benefit, and to harm (NNH) for adverse effects and withdrawal. Meta-analysis was undertaken using a fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies (3571 participants), studied gabapentin at daily doses of 1200 mg or more in 12 chronic pain conditions; 78% of participants were in studies of postherpetic neuralgia, painful diabetic neuropathy or mixed neuropathic pain. Using the IMMPACT definition of at least moderate benefit, gabapentin was superior to placebo in 14 studies with 2831 participants, 43% improving with gabapentin and 26% with placebo; the NNT was 5.8 (4.8 to 7.2). Using the IMMPACT definition of substantial benefit, gabapentin was superior to placebo in 13 studies with 2627 participants, 31% improving with gabapentin and 17% with placebo; the NNT was 6.8 (5.6 to 8.7). These estimates of efficacy are more conservative than those reported in a previous review. Data from few studies and participants were available for other painful conditions.Adverse events occurred significantly more often with gabapentin. Persons taking gabapentin can expect to have at least one adverse event (66%), withdraw because of an adverse event (12%), suffer dizziness (21%), somnolence (16%), peripheral oedema (8%), and gait disturbance (9%). Serious adverse events (4%) were no more common than with placebo.There were insufficient data for comparisons with other active treatments.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Gabapentin provides pain relief of a high level in about a third of people who take if for painful neuropathic pain. Adverse events are frequent, but mostly tolerable. More conservative estimates of efficacy resulted from using better definitions of efficacy outcome at higher, clinically important, levels, combined with a considerable increase in the numbers of studies and participants available for analysis.

The evidence for pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials on neuropathic pain treatment are accumulating, so an updated review of the available evidence is needed. Studies were identified using MEDLINE and EMBASE searches. Numbers needed to treat (NNT) and numbers needed to harm (NNH) values were used to compare the efficacy and safety of different treatments for a number of neuropathic pain conditions. One hundred and seventy-four studies were included, representing a 66% increase in published randomized, placebo-controlled trials in the last 5 years. Painful poly-neuropathy (most often due to diabetes) was examined in 69 studies, postherpetic neuralgia in 23, while peripheral nerve injury, central pain, HIV neuropathy, and trigeminal neuralgia were less often studied. Tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors, the anticonvulsants gabapentin and pregabalin, and opioids are the drug classes for which there is the best evidence for a clinical relevant effect. Despite a 66% increase in published trials only a limited improvement of neuropathic pain treatment has been obtained. A large proportion of neuropathic pain patients are left with insufficient pain relief. This fact calls for other treatment options to target chronic neuropathic pain. Large-scale drug trials that aim to identify possible subgroups of patients who are likely to respond to specific drugs are needed to test the hypothesis that a mechanism-based classification may help improve treatment of the individual patients.

A qualitative systematic review of head-to-head randomized controlled trials of oral analgesics in neuropathic pain

BACKGROUND

Neuropathic pain (NP) encompasses many difficult-to-treat disorders. There are few head-to-head, comparative, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of drugs for NP in different analgesic categories, or of different drugs within a category, despite many placebo-controlled RCTs for individual agents. Well-designed head-to-head comparative trials are an effective way to determine the relative efficacy and safety of a new drug.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review of head-to-head RCTs of oral analgesics in NP.

METHODS

A systematic review of RCTs involving NP patients was performed, of which head-to-head comparative trials were selected. Reference lists from published systematic reviews were searched. These studies were rated according to the Jadad scale for quality.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Twenty-seven such trials were identified. Seventeen were comparisons of different analgesics, and 10 were of different drugs within an analgesic class. Important information was obtained about the relative efficacy and safety of drugs in different categories and within a category. Some significant differences between active treatments were reported. Trial inadequacies were identified. More and improved head-to-head RCTs are needed to inform clinical choices.

EFNS guidelines on the pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain: 2010 revision

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

This second European Federation of Neurological Societies Task Force aimed at updating the existing evidence about the pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain since 2005.

METHODS

Studies were identified using the Cochrane Database and Medline. Trials were classified according to the aetiological condition. All class I and II randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were assessed; lower class studies were considered only in conditions that had no top-level studies. Treatments administered using repeated or single administrations were considered, provided they are feasible in an outpatient setting.

RESULTS

Most large RCTs included patients with diabetic polyneuropathies and post-herpetic neuralgia, while an increasing number of smaller studies explored other conditions. Drugs generally have similar efficacy in various conditions, except in trigeminal neuralgia, chronic radiculopathy and HIV neuropathy, with level A evidence in support of tricyclic antidepressants (TCA), pregabalin, gabapentin, tramadol and opioids (in various conditions), duloxetine, venlafaxine, topical lidocaine and capsaicin patches (in restricted conditions). Combination therapy appears useful for TCA-gabapentin and gabapentin-opioids (level A).

CONCLUSIONS

There are still too few large-scale comparative studies. For future trials, we recommend to assess comorbidities, quality of life, symptoms and signs with standardized tools and attempt to better define responder profiles to specific drug treatments.

Recommendations for the pharmacological management of neuropathic pain: an overview and literature update

The Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group of the International Association for the Study of Pain recently sponsored the development of evidence-based guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain. Tricyclic antidepressants, dual reuptake inhibitors of serotonin and norepinephrine, calcium channel alpha(2)-delta ligands (ie, gabapentin and pregabalin), and topical lidocaine were recommended as first-line treatment options on the basis of the results of randomized clinical trials. Opioid analgesics and tramadol were recommended as second-line treatments that can be considered for first-line use in certain clinical circumstances. Results of several recent clinical trials have become available since the development of these guidelines. These studies have examined botulinum toxin, high-concentration capsaicin patch, lacosamide, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, and combination therapies in various neuropathic pain conditions. The increasing number of negative clinical trials of pharmacological treatments for neuropathic pain and ambiguities in the interpretation of these negative trials must also be considered in developing treatment guidelines. The objectives of the current article are to review the Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group guidelines for the pharmacological management of neuropathic pain and to provide a brief overview of these recent studies.

Nortriptyline and gabapentin, alone and in combination for neuropathic pain: a double-blind, randomised controlled crossover trial

BACKGROUND

Drugs for neuropathic pain have incomplete efficacy and dose-limiting side-effects when given as monotherapy. We assessed the efficacy and tolerability of combined nortriptyline and gabapentin compared with each drug given alone.

METHODS

In this double-blind, double-dummy, crossover trial, patients with diabetic polyneuropathy or postherpetic neuralgia, and who had a daily pain score of at least 4 (scale 0-10), were enrolled and treated at one study site in Canada between Nov 5, 2004, and Dec 13, 2007. 56 patients were randomised in a 1:1:1 ratio with a balanced Latin square design to receive one of three sequences of daily oral gabapentin, nortriptyline, and their combination. In sequence, a different drug was given to each randomised group in three treatment periods. During each 6-week treatment period, drug doses were titrated towards maximum tolerated dose. The primary outcome was mean daily pain at maximum tolerated dose. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN73178636.

FINDINGS

45 patients completed all three treatment periods; 47 patients completed at least two treatment periods and were analysed for the primary outcome. Mean daily pain (0-10; numerical rating scale) was 5.4 (95% CI 5.0 to 5.8) at baseline, and at maximum tolerated dose, pain was 3.2 (2.5 to 3.8) for gabapentin, 2.9 (2.4 to 3.4) for nortriptyline, and 2.3 (1.8 to 2.8) for combination treatment. Pain with combination treatment was significantly lower than with gabapentin (-0.9, 95% CI -1.4 to -0.3, p=0.001) or nortriptyline alone (-0.6, 95% CI -1.1 to -0.1, p=0.02). At maximum tolerated dose, the most common adverse event was dry mouth, which was significantly less frequent in patients on gabapentin than on nortriptyline (p<0.0001) or combination treatment (p<0.0001). No serious adverse events were recorded for any patients during the trial.

INTERPRETATION

Combined gabapentin and nortriptyline seems to be more efficacious than either drug given alone for neuropathic pain, therefore we recommend use of this combination in patients who show a partial response to either drug given alone and seek additional pain relief. Future trials should compare other combinations to their respective monotherapies for treatment of such pain.

FUNDING

Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Gabapentin versus tricyclic antidepressants for diabetic neuropathy and post-herpetic neuralgia: discrepancies between direct and indirect meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Previous systematic reviews concluded that tricyclics antidepressants are superior to gabapentin for neuropathic pain, but were based on indirect comparisons from placebo-controlled trials.

PURPOSE

To evaluate gabapentin versus tricyclic antidepressants for diabetic neuropathy and post-herpetic neuralgia, using direct and indirect comparisons.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE (1966 to March Week 4 2008), the Cochrane central register of controlled trials (1st quarter 2008), and reference lists.

STUDY SELECTION

We selected randomized trials directly comparing gabapentin versus tricyclic antidepressants or comparing either of these medications versus placebo.

DATA EXTRACTION

Studies were reviewed, abstracted, and quality-rated by two independent investigators using predefined criteria.

DATA SYNTHESIS

We performed a meta-analysis of head-to-head trials using a random effects model and compared the results to an adjusted indirect analysis of placebo-controlled trials.

RESULTS

In three head-to-head trials, there was no difference between gabapentin and tricyclic antidepressants for achieving pain relief (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.29). In adjusted indirect analyses, gabapentin was worse than tricyclic antidepressants for achieving pain relief (RR = 0.41, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.74). The discrepancy between direct and indirect analyses was statistically significant (p = 0.008). Placebo-controlled tricyclic trials were conducted earlier than the gabapentin trials, reported lower placebo response rates, had more methodological shortcomings, and were associated with funnel plot asymmetry.

CONCLUSIONS

Though direct evidence is limited, we found no difference in likelihood of achieving pain relief between gabapentin and tricyclic antidepressants for diabetic neuropathy and post-herpetic neuralgia. Indirect analyses that combine data from sets of trials conducted in different eras can be unreliable.

An update on the pharmacological management of post-herpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy

Neuropathic pain is a persistent pain condition that develops secondary to nerve injury. The two most common types of peripheral neuropathic pain are post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN) and painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN). Amitriptyline, nortriptyline, desipramine and imipramine are TCAs that have been shown to be effective for the symptomatic relief of PHN and PDN. Serotonin noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) such as venlafaxine and duloxetine have been shown to be very promising for the treatment of PDN with fewer adverse effects than TCAs. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) were shown in a number of studies to have some efficacy in relieving PDN-related pain, yet other studies of the SSRIs have demonstrated conflicting outcomes. Most of the older antiepileptic studies were performed in patients with PDN; consequently, little is known about the efficacy of these drugs in patients with PHN. Carbamazepine, phenytoin and valproic acid were shown to be effective in ameliorating PDN-related pain. Other antiepileptic agents, including lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine and topiramate, have demonstrated some beneficial effects for the treatment of PDN, although they were also found to be ineffective in some PDN studies. alpha2delta Ligands such as gabapentin and pregabalin have been proven to be effective for the treatment of PHN and PDN in a number of large placebo-controlled trials. These drugs are useful not only in relieving pain but also in improving quality of life. Although the use of opioids for the treatment of neuropathic pain is controversial, a number of studies support the efficacy and safety of opioids in the treatment of neuropathic pain. Of these, oxycodone and tramadol have been shown to be superior to placebo for the treatment of PHN and PDN. A number of small studies have shown that dextromethorphan was effective in patients with PDN but not in patients with PHN. Topical agents such as lidocaine 5% patches and topical capsaicin are useful in ameliorating pain in patients with PHN but these agents are unsatisfactory for use as a sole agent. Although a number of drug treatments are available for the symptomatic relief of neuropathic pain symptoms, these agents do not provide satisfactory relief in all patients. For these patients, other treatment alternatives such as combination drug therapy that produces pain relief via distinctly different mechanisms may be successful. The purpose of this review is to compare the efficacy and limitations of currently available pharmacological treatments for the symptomatic relief of PHN and PDN, and to discuss the potential of combination therapy in PHN and PDN.

Current management of pain associated with multiple sclerosis

While pain is a common problem in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), it is not frequently mentioned by patients and a more direct approach is required in order to obtain information about pain from patients. Many patients with MS experience more than one pain syndrome; combinations of dysaesthesia, headaches and/or back or muscle and joint pain are frequent. For each pain syndrome a clear diagnosis and therapeutic concept needs to be established. Pain in MS can be classified into four diagnostically and therapeutically relevant categories: (i) neuropathic pain due to MS (pain directly related to MS); (ii) pain indirectly related to MS; (iii) MS treatment-related pain; and (iv) pain unrelated to MS. Painful paroxysmal symptoms such as trigeminal neuralgia (TN), or painful tonic spasms are treated with antiepileptics as first choice, e.g. carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, gabapentin, pregabalin, etc. Painful 'burning' dysaesthesias, the most frequent chronic pain syndrome, are treated with TCAs such as amitriptyline, or antiepileptics such as gabapentin, pregabalin, lamotrigine, etc. Combinations of drugs with different modes of action can be particularly useful for reducing adverse effects. While escalation therapy may require opioids, there are encouraging results from studies regarding cannabinoids, but their future role in the treatment of MS-related pain has still to be determined. Pain related to spasticity often improves with adequate physiotherapy. Drug treatment includes antispastic agents such as baclofen or tizanidine and in patients with phasic spasticity, gabapentin or levetiracetam are administered. In patients with severe spasticity, botulinum toxin injections or intrathecal baclofen merit consideration. While physiotherapy may ameliorate malposition-induced joint and muscle pain, additional drug treatment with paracetamol (acetaminophen) or NSAIDs may be useful. Moreover, painful pressure lesions should be avoided by using optimally adjusted aids. Treatment-related pain associated with MS can occur with subcutaneous injections of interferon-beta or glatiramer acetate, and may be reduced by optimizing the injection technique and by local cooling. Systemic (particularly 'flu-like') adverse effects of interferons, e.g. myalgias, can be reduced by administering paracetamol, ibuprofen or naproxen. A potential increase in the frequency of pre-existing headaches after starting treatment with interferons may require optimization of headache attack therapy or even prophylactic treatment. Pain unrelated to MS, such as back pain or headache, is common in patients with MS and may deteriorate as a result of the disease. In summary, a careful analysis of each pain syndrome will allow the design of the appropriate treatment plan using various medical and nonmedical options (multimodal therapy), and will thus help to improve the quality of life (QOL) of the patients.

Treatment of painful neuropathy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

With the aging of the population, treatment of painful neuropathies is becoming more and more important for neurological practice. This short review highlights recent findings and current problems.

RECENT FINDINGS

In addition to tricyclic antidepressants and gabapentin, the reliability of which is established, some drugs have more recently been demonstrated to be efficacious: major and minor opioids, pregabalin, and serotonin-noradrenaline-reuptake inhibitors. In contrast, some other drugs have yielded disappointing results: memantine, mexiletine, topiramate, and - very recently - lamotrigine. Three main questions are currently being debated. Notwithstanding their proven efficacy, should opioids be used in chronic noncancer pain? In which patients should serotonin-noradrenaline-reuptake inhibitors be preferred to tricyclic antidepressants? What is the difference between pregabalin and gabapentin? The whole field suffers from important limitations that make evidence-based medical data hard to translate in clinical practice: most clinical trials were and still are focused on two conditions only (diabetic neuropathy and postherpetic neuralgia) and studies on polytherapy are insufficient.

SUMMARY

A large variety of drugs are being tried in the treatment of painful neuropathy. Neurologists now have a wide choice. Recent publications can help in choosing the best treatment course.

Gabapentin and pregabalin for chronic neuropathic and early postsurgical pain: current evidence and future directions

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Gabapentin and pregabalin bind to the alpha-2-delta calcium channel subunit and represent a novel analgesic drug class. The evidence base supporting their use for chronic neuropathic and early postsurgical pain is reviewed.

RECENT FINDINGS

Multiple, large, high-quality trials have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of gabapentin and pregabalin in neuropathic pain. Treatment-related improvement of pain and sleep positively impact upon quality of life. Sedation, dizziness and ataxia are important and relatively common adverse effects, however. Accumulating evidence indicates that gabapentin, and possibly pregabalin, also exert important effects following surgery. Multiple high-quality trials have demonstrated analgesic and opioid-sparing efficacy with gabapentin following various surgical procedures. Gabapentin and pregabalin reduce movement-evoked pain and this can lead to enhanced functional postoperative recovery. Postoperative opioid sparing is of questionable relevance since few trials have shown reduced opioid-related adverse effects. Sedation, dizziness and ataxia have been reported in only a few trials. Future larger-scale perioperative trials focused on safety assessment are needed, however.

SUMMARY

Gabapentin and pregabalin are efficacious treatments for neuropathic and postsurgical pain. Future research addressing several specific questions would serve to better delineate their optimal roles in treating these and other pain conditions.