-
Pain and Therapy Jun 2021Peripheral neuropathic pain (PNP) arises either acutely or in the chronic phase of a lesion or disease of the peripheral nervous system and is associated with a notable... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Peripheral neuropathic pain (PNP) arises either acutely or in the chronic phase of a lesion or disease of the peripheral nervous system and is associated with a notable disease burden. The management of PNP is often challenging. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate current evidence, derived from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that have assessed pharmacological interventions for the treatment of PNP due to polyneuropathy (PN).
METHODS
A systematic search of the PubMed database led to the identification of 538 papers, of which 457 were excluded due to not meeting the eligibility criteria, and two articles were identified through screening of the reference lists of the 81 eligible studies. Ultimately, 83 papers were included in this systematic review.
RESULTS
The best available evidence for the management of painful diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN) is for amitriptyline, duloxetine, gabapentin, pregabalin and venlafaxine as monotherapies and oxycodone as add-on therapy (level II of evidence). Tramadol appears to be effective when used as a monotherapy and add-on therapy in patients with PN of various etiologies (level II of evidence). Weaker evidence (level III) is available on the effectiveness of several other agents discussed in this review for the management of PNP due to PN.
DISCUSSION
Response to treatment may be affected by the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms that are involved in the pathogenesis of the PN and, therefore, it is very important to thoroughly investigate patients presenting with PNP to determine the causes of this neuropathy. Future RCTs should be conducted to shed more light on the use of pharmacological approaches in patients with other forms of PNP and to design specific treatment algorithms.
PubMed: 33145709
DOI: 10.1007/s40122-020-00210-3 -
European Review For Medical and... May 2024Painful peripheral diabetic neuropathy (PRDN) is a common disabling condition. Pregabalin and amitriptyline are commonly prescribed as the first-line for PPDN despite... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Painful peripheral diabetic neuropathy (PRDN) is a common disabling condition. Pregabalin and amitriptyline are commonly prescribed as the first-line for PPDN despite the contradicting recommendations. There is a need to inform the scientific community regarding first-line pain control among patients with PPDN. This meta-analysis assessed pregabalin and amitriptyline effects on PPDN.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EBSCO, and Google Scholar; the terms used were amitriptyline, pregabalin, painful diabetic neuropathy, antidepressant, gabapentinoids, quality of life, and adverse events. Boolean operators like AND, and OR were used. Six hundred and thirty-one studies were retrieved, and 37 full texts were screened. However, only six randomized controlled trials fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria.
RESULTS
No significant statistical differences between amitriptyline and pregabalin regarding pain score and significant pain reduction (odd ratio, -0.82, 95% CI, -2.21-0.58, and odd ratio, 1.16, 95% CI, 0.76-1.76 respectively). Quality of life, total adverse events, and drug discontinuation were not different between the two drugs (odd ratio, 0.89, 95% CI, -2.11-3.89, odd ratio, 0.98, 95% CI, 0.52-1.85, and odd ratio, 0.51, 95% CI, 0.08-3.15, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS
No significant statistical differences between amitriptyline and pregabalin regarding their effects on pain and quality of life. The drugs showed similar total adverse events and drug withdrawal. Further larger real-world studies are needed.
Topics: Pregabalin; Amitriptyline; Humans; Diabetic Neuropathies; Analgesics; Quality of Life
PubMed: 38856135
DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_202405_36296 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2024Amidst rising global burden of depression and the associated challenges with conventional antidepressant therapies, there is a growing interest in exploring the...
Amidst rising global burden of depression and the associated challenges with conventional antidepressant therapies, there is a growing interest in exploring the efficacy and safety of alternative treatments. This study uses a Bayesian network meta-analysis to rigorously evaluate the therapeutic potential of Chinese herbal medicines in the treatment of depression, focusing on their comparative efficacy and safety against standard pharmacological interventions. Five databases (PubMed, Wanfang Data, EMBASE, CNKI, and the Cochrane Library) and grey literature were searched from inception to end of July 2023 to identify studies that assessed the efficacy and safety of Chinese herbal medicines in treating depression. The response rate, Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD) scores, and rates of adverse events were assessed through both direct and indirect comparisons. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were meticulously performed. Statistical analysis used Markov chain Monte Carlo methods, with effect size estimates provided as odd ratios and their 95% confidence intervals. A total of 198 RCTs involving 8,923 patients were analyzed, assessing 17 Chinese herbal medicines. Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking results indicated that the top three treatments with the best response rate were possibly , , and ; the top three treatments on the reduction of HAMD scores were , , and ; and the top three treatments with the lowest adverse effects rates were , , and . Interestingly, commonly used synthetic drugs such as , , , , , and , not only appeared to be less effective than specific Chinese herbal medicines (, , , , and ), but they were also related to substantially higher risk of adverse events. Our findings elucidate the promising therapeutic potential of Chinese herbal medicines as viable alternatives in the treatment of depression, with certain herbs demonstrating enhanced efficacy and safety profiles. The outcomes of this study advocate for the integration of these alternative modalities into contemporary depression management paradigms. However, it underscores the necessity for larger, methodologically robust trials to further validate and refine these preliminary findings. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42023452109.
PubMed: 38633609
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2024.1295564 -
Pain and Therapy Dec 2022The IASP ICD-11 chronic primary pain (CPP) definition includes 19 different painful conditions. In recent years, interest in the potential role of cannabinoids in the...
INTRODUCTION
The IASP ICD-11 chronic primary pain (CPP) definition includes 19 different painful conditions. In recent years, interest in the potential role of cannabinoids in the management of CPP has increased, since they demonstrated a possible efficacy in treating pain, especially in secondary pain conditions. However, limited evidence is available for patients with CPP. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of cannabinoid administration in CPP.
METHODS
PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched form the beginning up to 31 October 2021 to retrieve published articles of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or observational, retrospective or prospective, studies, investigating cannabinoids in CPP. The study screening process was completed during November 2021. The primary outcome was pain reduction by means of the visual analogue scale (VAS). Secondary outcomes were quality of life by means of the fibromyalgia impact questionnaire (FIQ) or other available scales, appetite, anxiety, depression, and sleep by means of any available scales. Safety was assessed with the reporting of serious adverse events (SAE) and discontinuation due to adverse events. Risk of bias was assessed. The weighted generic inverse variance method and Mantel-Haenszel method were used to estimate the mean difference (MD) and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for continuous and dichotomous outcomes, respectively. For outcome measures reported with different scales (pain, anxiety, depression), we used the standardized MD (SMD) as the effect measure and then converted it into units of the VAS scale for pain, the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) for anxiety, and the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) for depression. Summary of findings was produced using GRADEproGDT.
RESULTS
From 3007 identified records, we included eight articles reporting the results of eight different RCTs (four parallel and four crossover studies; seven compared to placebo and one to amitriptyline), with a total population of 240 patients. VAS pain reduction was non-significant for cannabinoids against placebo (MD = - 0.64; 95% CI - 1.30 to 0.02) or amitriptyline (MD = - 0.19; 95% CI - 0.58 to 0.19). More than 4 weeks cannabinoid treatment significantly reduced pain compared to placebo in parallel studies with more than 4 weeks of treatment duration (MD = - 1.28; 95% CI - 2.33 to - 0.22). Differences for the FIQ (MD = - 21.69; 95% CI - 46.20 to 2.82), BAI (MD = - 2.32; 95% CI - 7.99 to 3.08), and BDI (MD = 2.32; 95% CI - 1.71 to 6.35) were non-significant, likewise for discontinuation due to adverse events (OR = 2.15; 95% CI 0.44-10.65), when comparing cannabinoids to placebo. The quality of the evidence was generally low mainly as a result of imprecision and risk of bias.
CONCLUSION
Cannabinoid treatment in patients with CPP had limited benefit on pain relief; however, it might improve pain with long-term administration.
PubMed: 36129666
DOI: 10.1007/s40122-022-00434-5 -
Spinal Cord Series and Cases Jul 2022Systematic review.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review.
OBJECTIVES
This systematic review evaluates all randomized clinical trials (RCTs) conducted on assessing the efficacy and safety of pharmacologic therapies for the treatment of Spinal Cord Injury (SCI)-associated pain.
METHODS
The PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane library online databases were searched from 1946 to May 2019 using specific search terms for SCI, pain, and RCTs meeting predetermined inclusion criteria. The efficacy outcome of interest was pain reduction, discontinuations, and adverse events (AEs).
RESULTS
Of 2746 records identified through database searching, 703 duplicates were deleted. 1814 were excluded, the full text of the remaining 230 articles was reviewed, and finally, 28 papers were selected for drafting. The most studied medications were pregabalin, gabapentin, amitriptyline, and ketamine. Pregabalin, gabapentin, and amitriptyline reduced VAS by more than 30%, and ketamine reduced VAS by 40%. Oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, alfentanil, tramadol, and morphine added to clonidine, baclofen, and botulinum toxin type A (BTA) significantly reduced pain compared with placebo. On the other hand, valproate, levetiracetam, trazodone, and duloxetine did not significantly alleviate SCI-associated pain compared to placebo. The risks of AEs and discontinuations in anticonvulsants were the least, while it was highest in analgesics.
CONCLUSIONS
Studies of SCI-associated pain were few, small, heterogenic in measures and values, and did not allow quantitative comparisons of efficacy. However, available data suggested pregabalin and gabapentin led to a more marked reduction in SCI-associated pain with fewer AEs. Additional clinical studies are needed to assess the effect of established and novel management options.
Topics: Amitriptyline; Anticonvulsants; Gabapentin; Humans; Ketamine; Pain; Pregabalin; Spinal Cord Injuries
PubMed: 35788127
DOI: 10.1038/s41394-022-00529-3 -
Headache Jul 2020Sleep disorders and circadian dysregulation appear to be associated with primary headache disorders. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Sleep disorders and circadian dysregulation appear to be associated with primary headache disorders.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to review the existing evidence for the deployment of melatonin in migraine prophylaxis. Initially, case-control studies investigating nocturnal melatonin and 6-sulphatoxymelatonin (aMT6s, melatonin metabolite discarded by the urine) levels in patients with migraine and healthy controls (HC) would be reviewed and meta-analyzed. Second, results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies evaluating the use of melatonin in migraine would be synthesized.
METHODS
MEDLINE EMBASE, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, trial registries, Google Scholar, and OpenGrey were comprehensively searched. The quality of studies was assessed according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (case-control studies) and the Risk-of-Bias Cochrane tool (RCTs). Random-effects (RE) or fixed-effects (FE) model was used based on heterogeneity among studies (homogeneity assumed when PQ > 0.1 and I < 30%). Publication bias was assessed by funnel plots.
RESULTS
Literature search provided 11 case-control studies. Evidence was compatible with lower nocturnal serum [5 of 6 studies were synthesized due to deficient reporting of 1 abstract, migraine n = 197, HC n = 132, RE MD = -12.29 pg/ml, 95%CI = (-21.10, -3.49)] and urinary melatonin [3 studies, migraine n = 30, HC n = 29, RE MD = -0.12 nmol/nocturnal (12 hours) urinary collection, 95%CI = (-0.22, -0.03)], as well as urine aMT6s levels [1 study, migraine n = 146, HC n = 74, MD = -11.90 μg/nocturnal (12 hours) urine collection, 95%CI = (-19.23, -4.57)] in adult migraine patients compared to HC [1 study involving children did not reveal any difference regarding nocturnal urine aMT6s, n = 18 per group, MD = -6.00 μg/nocturnal (12 hours) urine collection, 95%CI = (-21.19, 9.19)]. Regarding the treatment-prevention of migraine, 7 RCTs and 9 non-randomized studies were retrieved. Data synthesis was not feasible for the comparison of melatonin and placebo due to the existing clinical and methodological heterogeneity of the 5 relevant RCTs. Overall, melatonin was more efficacious and equally safe with placebo in the prevention of migraine in adults (3 of 4 RCTs provided superior efficacy results for melatonin, 1 RCT revealed no difference regarding Headache Frequency -HF-), while there are limited data for children (1 RCT revealed no difference against placebo regarding HF). Additionally, no difference was revealed between melatonin and amitriptyline (1 RCT), sodium valproate (1 RCT) or propranolol (1 non-randomized study) with respect to their efficacy in adults with migraine, while melatonin was more effective than pizotifen (1 RCT). In children with migraine, amitriptyline is more efficacious regarding most assessed parameters (2 studies, n = 85 per group, HF: RE MD = 4.03, 95%CI = (2.64, 5.42), Headache Duration: RE MD = 0.72, 95%CI = (0.41, 1.03), Headache Severity: FE MD = 1.57, 95%CI = (1.13, 2.00), Response to Treatment: FE MD = 0.33, 95%CI = (0.16, 0.69), Headache Induced Disability Severity: RE MD = 6.07, 95%CI = (-11.87, 24.01 ), Analgesic Consumption - assessed in 1 study, n = 40 per group - MD = 1.11, 95%CI = (-0.10, 2.32)), although melatonin presents a superior safety profile than amitriptyline both in adults and in children.
CONCLUSIONS
Melatonin may be of potential benefit in the treatment-prevention of migraine in adults, but complementary evidence from high-quality RCTs is required.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Melatonin; Migraine Disorders
PubMed: 32352572
DOI: 10.1111/head.13828 -
The Laryngoscope Jun 2021To evaluate the effectiveness of neuromodulating agents for the management of atypical facial pain and primary facial neuralgias. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the effectiveness of neuromodulating agents for the management of atypical facial pain and primary facial neuralgias.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases for original research articles that examine the effectiveness and adverse reactions of pharmacologic therapy for the treatment of trigeminal neuralgia and atypical facial pain. Studies that included surgical interventions for atypical facial pain or facial pain secondary to other causes were excluded. Meta-analysis was conducted for reductions in symptom scores and adverse effects.
RESULTS
Of 3,409 articles screened, 73 full-text articles were included, consisting of 45 observational studies and 29 randomized controlled trials. Twenty-four different pharmacological agents were assessed; carbamazepine was the most frequently studied while botulinum toxin A demonstrated the highest consistency in reduction of symptom scores. Pooled estimate of three randomized controlled trials revealed that patients with trigeminal neuralgia who received botulinum toxin A had higher odds (odds ratio 7.46; 95% CI 3.53-15.78) of achieving a ≥50% reduction in visual analogue scale scores compared to controls. Pooled estimate of 15 observational studies showed that three-fourths of patients with trigeminal neuralgia who received carbamazepine experienced clinically significant pain reduction (prevalence proportion 0.75; 95% CI 0.66-0.83).
CONCLUSIONS
Patients receiving botulinum toxin A for trigeminal neuralgia had higher odds of achieving ≥50% reduction in pain scores. A significant proportion of patients with trigeminal neuralgia experienced positive response to carbamazepine. There was moderate evidence for amitriptyline in patients with atypical facial pain. Standardization of outcome reporting would facilitate future quantitative comparisons of therapeutic effectiveness. Laryngoscope, 131:1235-1253, 2021.
Topics: Adult; Amitriptyline; Botulinum Toxins, Type A; Carbamazepine; Facial Nerve; Facial Pain; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Neuralgia; Neurotransmitter Agents; Observational Studies as Topic; Odds Ratio; Pain Management; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Trigeminal Neuralgia
PubMed: 33037835
DOI: 10.1002/lary.29162 -
The Journal of Headache and Pain Dec 2023Chronic migraine can be a profoundly disabling disorder that may be treated with preventive medications. However, uncertainty remains as to which preventive medication... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Chronic migraine can be a profoundly disabling disorder that may be treated with preventive medications. However, uncertainty remains as to which preventive medication is the most effective. We present a network meta-analysis to determine the effectiveness and rank of preventive drugs for chronic migraine in adults.
METHODS
We identified, reviewed, and extracted data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of preventive drugs for chronic migraine with at least 200 participants. Data were analysed using network meta-analysis.
FINDINGS
We included 12 RCTs of six medications (Eptinezumab, Erenumab, Fremanezumab, Galcanezumab, Onabotulinumtoxin A, and Topiramate) compared to placebo or each other. All drugs effectively reduced monthly headache and migraine days compared with placebo. The most effective drug for monthly headache days was Eptinezumab 300mg, with a mean difference of -2.46 days, 95% Credible Interval (CrI): -3.23 to -1.69. On the Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking Area (SUCRA) analysis, the probability that Eptinezumab 300mg was ranked highest was 0.82. For monthly migraine days, the most effective medication was Fremanezumab-monthly, with a mean difference: -2.77 days, 95% CrI: -3.36 to -2.17, and 0.98 probability of being ranked the highest. All included drugs, except Topiramate, improved headache-related quality of life. No eligible studies were identified for the other common preventive oral medications such as Amitriptyline, Candesartan, and Propranolol. The main reasons were that the studies did not define chronic migraine, were undertaken before the definition of chronic migraine, or were too small.
INTERPRETATION
All six medications were more effective than the placebo on monthly headache and migraine days. The absolute differences in the number of headache/migraine days are, at best, modest. No evidence was found to determine the relative effectiveness of the six included drugs with other oral preventive medications.
REGISTRATION
PROSPERO (number CRD42021265990).
Topics: Adult; Humans; Topiramate; Network Meta-Analysis; Migraine Disorders; Treatment Outcome; Headache; Double-Blind Method
PubMed: 38057728
DOI: 10.1186/s10194-023-01696-w -
Human Psychopharmacology Nov 2021Depressive symptoms occur in several psychiatric disorders, often in the absence of a formal diagnosis of depression. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Depressive symptoms occur in several psychiatric disorders, often in the absence of a formal diagnosis of depression. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and the tolerability of amisulpride, both alone and as augmentation therapy, in the treatment of depressive symptoms in individuals with any major psychiatric disorder.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, GreyLit, OpenGrey and ProQuest up to March 2020 for randomised controlled trials focussing on the treatment of an acute depressive episode in any major psychiatric disorder. A random-effect meta-analysis was performed to synthesize the findings on depressive symptoms (primary outcome), response rate and tolerability.
RESULTS
We retrieved 11 studies including 2065 patients with a diagnosis of dysthymia (eight studies), major depression (one study) or schizophrenia (two studies). Amisulpride 50 mg/day was associated with a larger reduction of depressive symptoms compared to placebo (standardised mean difference [SMD] = -0.70, CI 95% -0.92, -0.49; I = 0.0%), and was found to be comparable to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs; SMD = -0.08, CI 95% -0.23, 0.06, I = 0.0%), amineptine, imipramine and amitriptyline in the treatment of dysthymia (three studies, not pooled). In individuals with schizophrenia, amisulpride administered at higher doses (>400 mg/day) was comparable to olanzapine and risperidone (two studies, not pooled). In terms of tolerability, amisulpride was superior to placebo for dysthymia (odds ratio [OR] = 3.94, CI 95% 1.07, 14.48; I = 0.0) and comparable with SSRIs (OR = 0.94, CI 95% 0.55, 1.62; I = 0.0%).
CONCLUSION
Treatment with amisulpride could be a valid choice for selected individuals with dysthymia or depressive symptoms in the context of schizophrenia. More studies on the efficacy and tolerability of amisulpride are needed to draw firm conclusions on its potential benefits in other psychiatric disorders.
Topics: Amisulpride; Antipsychotic Agents; Depression; Depressive Disorder, Major; Dysthymic Disorder; Humans
PubMed: 34727399
DOI: 10.1002/hup.2801 -
Journal of Oral Rehabilitation Sep 2019The aim of this systematic review (SR) was to answer the following question: "In adult patients with temporomandibular disorder (TMD)-related pain, what is the placebo... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this systematic review (SR) was to answer the following question: "In adult patients with temporomandibular disorder (TMD)-related pain, what is the placebo or nocebo effect of different therapies?"
METHODS
A SR was performed with randomised clinical placebo-controlled trials on diagnosed painful TMD studies from five main databases and from three grey literature. Studies included must have sample older than 18 years, with painful TMD, which diagnosis was done by Research Diagnostic Criteria (RDC/TMD) or Diagnostic Criteria (DC/TMD).
RESULTS
Out of 770 articles obtained, 42 met the inclusion criteria for qualitative and 26 for quantitative analysis. Meta-analysis indicated mean variation on pain intensity for placebo therapy was higher on laser acupuncture with 45.5 mm point reduction, followed by avocado soya bean extract with 36 mm and amitriptyline 25 mg with 25.2 mm. Laser showed a 29% of placebo effect, as well medicine with 19% and other therapies with 26%. Possible nocebo effect of 8% pain increase was found for intra-articular injection of Ultracain.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the available data, the placebo response could play a major effect on TMD pain management and may be responsible from 10% to 75% of pain relief. Laser acupuncture, avocado soya bean and amitriptyline promoted the higher placebo effect. Possible nocebo effect was found only for Ultracain injection with 8%.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Clinicians could apply such evidence to optimise pain management and judgement about treatment efficacy, and researches may find it useful when designing their investigations.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Nocebo Effect; Pain; Pain Management; Pain Measurement; Temporomandibular Joint Disorders
PubMed: 31155735
DOI: 10.1111/joor.12827