-
Pain Reports Apr 2024Neuropathic pain is a challenging chronic pain condition. Limited knowledge exists regarding the relative effectiveness of pharmacological treatments, and differences in... (Review)
Review
Neuropathic pain is a challenging chronic pain condition. Limited knowledge exists regarding the relative effectiveness of pharmacological treatments, and differences in trial design and impact of the placebo response preclude indirect comparisons of efficacy between drug classes. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis of head-to-head trials was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of drugs recommended for neuropathic pain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of direct-comparison double-blind randomized trials. Primary outcomes were mean change in pain intensity and number of responders with a 50% reduction in pain intensity. Secondary outcomes encompassed quality of life, sleep, emotional functioning, and number of dropouts because of adverse events. We included 30 trials (4087 patients), comprising 16 crossover and 14 parallel-group design studies. All studies were conducted in adults, and the majority were investigator-initiated trials. We found moderate-quality evidence for equivalence (no clinically relevant difference) between tricyclic antidepressants (TCA) and gabapentin/pregabalin with a combined mean difference in pain score of 0.10 (95% CI -0.13 to 0.32). We could not document differences between TCA and serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRI), between SNRI and gabapentin/pregabalin, or between opioids and TCA (low quality of evidence). We found more dropouts because of adverse events with SNRI and opioids compared with TCA (low quality of evidence). We did not identify any studies that included topical treatments. This systematic review of direct-comparison studies found evidence for equivalence between TCA and gabapentin/pregabalin and fewer dropouts with TCA than SNRI and opioids.
PubMed: 38932764
DOI: 10.1097/PR9.0000000000001138 -
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 -
Brain & Spine 2024The effectiveness of post-surgical rehabilitation following lumbar disc herniation (LDH) surgery is unclear. (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
The effectiveness of post-surgical rehabilitation following lumbar disc herniation (LDH) surgery is unclear.
RESEARCH QUESTION
To investigate the effectiveness and safety of rehabilitation interventions initiated within three months post-surgery for adults treated surgically for LDH.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
This systematic review searched seven databases from inception to November 2023. Independent reviewers screened studies, assessed and extracted data, and rated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
RESULTS
This systematic review retrieved 20,531 citations and included 25 randomized controlled trials. The high certainty evidence suggests that adding Pilates exercise to routine care and cognitive behavioral therapy may improve function immediately post-intervention (1 RCT), and that adding whole-body magnetic therapy to exercise, pharmacological and aquatic therapy may reduce low back pain intensity (1 RCT) immediately post-intervention. Compared to placebo, pregabalin did not reduce low back pain or leg pain intensity (1 RCT) (moderate to high certainty evidence). We found no differences between: 1) behavioral graded activity vs. physiotherapy (1 RCT); 2) exercise and education vs. neck massage or watchful waiting (1 RCT); 3) exercise, education, and in-hospital usual care vs. in-hospital usual care (1 RCT); 4) functional or staged exercise vs. usual post-surgical care including exercise (2 RCTs); and 5) supervised exercise with education vs. education (1 RCT). No studies assessed adverse events.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Evidence on effective and safe post-surgical rehabilitation interventions is sparse. This review identified two interventions with potential short-term benefits (Pilates exercises, whole-body magnetic therapy) but safety is unclear, and one with an iatrogenic effect (pregabalin).
PubMed: 38690091
DOI: 10.1016/j.bas.2024.102806 -
Frontiers in Medicine 2024This network meta-analysis was to analyze and rank the efficacy and safety of different systemic drugs in the treatment of uremic pruritus (UP) among hemodialysis...
Efficacy and safety of different systemic drugs in the treatment of uremic pruritus among hemodialysis patients: a network meta-analysis based on randomized clinical trials.
AIM
This network meta-analysis was to analyze and rank the efficacy and safety of different systemic drugs in the treatment of uremic pruritus (UP) among hemodialysis patients.
METHOD
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched from inception to 10 July 2023 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating different drugs in the treatment of UP among hemodialysis patients. Drugs including cromolyn sodium, dexchlorpheniramine, difelikefalin, gabapentin, hydroxyzine, ketotifen, melatonin, montelukast, nalbuphine, nalfurafine, nemolizumab, nicotinamide, pregabalin, sertraline, thalidomide, and placebo were assessed. Outcome measures, including pruritus relief, response, and adverse events, were analyzed. Network plots, forest plots, league tables, and the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities were depicted for each outcome.
RESULTS
The network meta-analysis retrieved 22 RCTs. Gabapentin (69.74%) had the highest likelihood to be the most effective drug for pruritus relief in UP patients receiving hemodialysis, followed by cromolyn sodium and hydroxyzine. Thalidomide (60.69%) and gabapentin (58.99%) were associated with significantly more drug responses for treating UP among patients receiving hemodialysis. Patients who were treated with gabapentin (40.01%) were likely to have risks of adverse events and dizziness. Lower risks of adverse events, nausea, and diarrhea were found in patients who received cromolyn sodium and lower risks of somnolence.
CONCLUSION
This study suggests considering gabapentin treatment when facing a patient suffering from UP. This study provides a reference for the selection of drug therapy for UP patients receiving hemodialysis.
PubMed: 38646551
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1334944 -
Orthopedic Reviews 2024The opioid crisis has become a present concern in the medical field. In an effort to address these complications, antineuropathic pain medications have been considered...
BACKGROUND
The opioid crisis has become a present concern in the medical field. In an effort to address these complications, antineuropathic pain medications have been considered as alternatives to prescribed opioids.
OBJECTIVE
This review focuses on the analgesic effects of neuromodulators, such as gabapentin, duloxetine, and pregabalin, that provide room for less dependence on narcotic analgesics following orthopedic surgery.
METHODS
During the database searches, 1,033 records were identified as a preliminary result. After duplicates were removed, an initial screen of each article was completed which identified records to be removed due to absence of a full-text article. Articles were excluded if they were not either prospective or retrospective, showcased an irrelevant medication (such as tricyclic antidepressants) which are not pertinent to this review, or deemed to be unrelated to the topic.
RESULTS
Ultimately, 19 articles were selected. Three different drugs, gabapentin, pregabalin, and duloxetine, were analyzed to compile data on the effectiveness of preventing opioid overuse and addiction following hand surgery. This review identifies potential evidence that peri-operative gabapentin, pregabalin, and duloxetine administration decreases post-operative pain and lowers opioid dependency.
CONCLUSION
Gabapentin, pregabalin, and duloxetine have potential to further decrease post-operative pain and lower opioid dependency. This review creates an opening for further research in hand surgery to assess an updated protocol for pain management to reduce opioid dependency.
PubMed: 38505138
DOI: 10.52965/001c.93012 -
Cureus Jan 2024Post-dural puncture headache (PDPH) is occasionally an inevitable side effect of neuraxial anesthesia, which can happen after spinal anesthesia or if an accidental dural... (Review)
Review
Post-dural puncture headache (PDPH) is occasionally an inevitable side effect of neuraxial anesthesia, which can happen after spinal anesthesia or if an accidental dural puncture (ADP) happens during epidural anesthesia. The treatment and prevention options for PDPH differ widely from one institution to another. The management of PDPH is heterogeneous in many institutions because of the absence of clear guidelines and protocols for the management of PDPH. This study aimed to summarize all articles published during the past decade that discussed the treatment or prevention of PDPH. From 2013 to 2023, 345 publications were filtered for all treatment and prevention approaches used for PDPH patients. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines were followed for conducting this systematic review, and 38 articles were included for analysis and review. Existing data come from small randomized clinical trials and retrospective or prospective cohort studies. This review supports the effect of oral pregabalin and intravenous aminophylline in both treatment and prevention. Intravenous mannitol, intravenous hydrocortisone, triple prophylactic regimen, and neostigmine plus atropine combination showed effective and beneficial outcomes. On the other hand, neither neuraxial morphine nor epidural dexamethasone showed promising results. Consequently, the use of neuraxial morphine or epidural dexamethasone for the prevention of PDPH remains questionable. Regarding the posture of the patient and its consequences on the incidence of the headache, lateral decubitus is better than a sitting position, and a prone position is better than a supine position. Smaller non-cutting needles play a role in avoiding PDPH. Minimally invasive nerve blocks, including sphenopalatine ganglion or greater occipital nerves, are satisfyingly effective. Epidural blood patches remain the more invasive but the gold standard and ultimate solution in patients resisting medical therapy. This study highlights the need for larger research to define the best approach to prevent and treat PDPH.
PubMed: 38361721
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.52330 -
Scandinavian Journal of Pain Jan 2024To systematically review the existing literature for evidence of efficacy around interventions in the management of persistent pain post radiotherapy for head and neck...
OBJECTIVES
To systematically review the existing literature for evidence of efficacy around interventions in the management of persistent pain post radiotherapy for head and neck cancers.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was conducted to assess the effectiveness and safety of interventions for the management of persistent post-radiotherapy pain in head and neck cancers. The primary outcome evaluated whether an intervention resulted in a reduction in pain which was determined using validated pain tools.
RESULTS
Two randomised controlled trials involving 196 participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria, one evaluating the effect of hypnotherapy and the other evaluating the effect of pregabalin on radiotherapy related pain in head and neck cancer patients. In one study by Thuma et al. (2016) there was a decrease in pain scores in the hypnotherapy group (p<0.001). In the other study, by Jiang et al. (2018) patients treated with pregabalin had a greater reduction in pain intensity, pain severity and a reduction in pain functional interference (p<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
The findings of our review suggest that in chronic post-radiotherapy pain for head and neck cancers there is very-low level evidence for the use of hypnotherapy in reducing pain scores and for the use of pregabalin in reducing pain intensity, severity, functional interference and psychological distress with significant improvement in quality of life.
Topics: Humans; Pain Management; Pregabalin; Quality of Life; Head and Neck Neoplasms; Chronic Pain
PubMed: 38126203
DOI: 10.1515/sjpain-2023-0069 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023Multimodal management of spinal stenosis is on the rise, and central sensitisation inhibitors are playing an essential role in the treatment of central sensitisation...
Multimodal management of spinal stenosis is on the rise, and central sensitisation inhibitors are playing an essential role in the treatment of central sensitisation processes. Pregabalin and gabapentin are antiepileptic drugs that decrease presynaptic excitability. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the use of pregabalin and gabapentin is effective in the symptomatic management of spinal stenosis, compared to other drugs, by using pain and disability rating scales. We also assessed the safety profile associated with these drugs. We conducted a bibliographic search in the Pubmed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Collaboration Library databases. The inclusion criteria were studies that compared pregabalin or gabapentin to a control group in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. We included randomized clinical trialsand a comparative retrospective cohort study. The primary clinical endpoints were VAS/NRS and ODI, measured at two, four, 8 weeks, and 3 months, while adverse events and walking distance were also collected. We combined the data using Review Manager 5.4 software. Our meta-analysis included six studies with a total of 392 patients, with a mean age of 60.3 years. We observed no significant differences in VAS scores at two, four, and 8 weeks: MD: 0.23, 95% CI: 0.63 to 1.09; MD: -0.04, 95% CI: -0.64 to -0.57; and MD: -0.6, 95% CI: -1.22 to 0.02, respectively. However, at 3 months, we found significant differences in favor of pregabalin with respect to VAS: MD: -2.97, 95% CI: -3.43 to -2.51. We did not observe significant differences respect to the ODI: MD: -3.47, 95% CI: -7.15 to -0.21. Adverse events were significantly higher in the pregabalin/gabapentin group (OR 5.88, 95% CI: 1.28-27.05). Our meta-analysis suggests that abapentinoids may have a significant effect on VAS score at 3 months, but no significant differences were observed in ODI scores, and adverse events were higher in the gabapentinoids group.
PubMed: 38094885
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1249478 -
Beyond the Pain: A Systematic Narrative Review of the Latest Advancements in Fibromyalgia Treatment.Cureus Oct 2023Fibromyalgia is a complex chronic pain disorder that significantly impacts the quality of life of affected individuals. The etiology of fibromyalgia remains elusive,... (Review)
Review
Fibromyalgia is a complex chronic pain disorder that significantly impacts the quality of life of affected individuals. The etiology of fibromyalgia remains elusive, necessitating effective treatment options. This review aims to provide an overview of current treatment options for fibromyalgia and highlight recent updates in managing the condition. The methodology employed in this systematic review comprised the following key steps. We conducted a comprehensive search across various databases to identify pertinent studies published between 2000 and 2023. Inclusion criteria were defined to specifically target studies involving adult individuals diagnosed with fibromyalgia, with a focus on both pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for managing the condition. The review encompassed a range of study types, including randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and systematic reviews. To ensure the quality of the selected studies, we employed appropriate assessment tools, and data extraction and synthesis adhered to established guidelines. This rigorous approach allowed for a robust analysis of the literature on fibromyalgia management. In the course of our review, it became evident that a spectrum of treatment approaches holds significant promise in the management of fibromyalgia. Specifically, pharmacological interventions, including selective serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, anticonvulsants, cannabinoids, tropisetron, and sodium oxybate, have exhibited substantial potential in alleviating fibromyalgia symptoms. Concurrently, non-pharmacological strategies, such as cognitive-behavioral therapy, exercise regimens, and complementary and alternative therapies, have yielded positive outcomes in improving the condition's management. Recent developments in the field have introduced innovative pharmacological agents like milnacipran and pregabalin, in addition to non-pharmacological interventions like mindfulness-based stress reduction and aquatic exercise, expanding the array of options available to enhance fibromyalgia care and alleviating patient symptoms. Fibromyalgia necessitates a multidisciplinary approach to treatment, encompassing both pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions. Recent updates in fibromyalgia management offer additional options to alleviate symptoms and improve the quality of life for individuals with fibromyalgia. Healthcare professionals should remain informed about these advancements to provide evidence-based care, addressing the complex symptoms associated with fibromyalgia and enhancing patient outcomes.
PubMed: 38034135
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.48032 -
Cureus Nov 2023Dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) is an effective surgical procedure for addressing lacrimal drainage problems. However, it can be a painful operation that involves incisions... (Review)
Review
Dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) is an effective surgical procedure for addressing lacrimal drainage problems. However, it can be a painful operation that involves incisions both inside and outside the eye, often leading to a high incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Preemptive analgesics can be employed to alleviate this unrelieved pain. Nonetheless, many of the drugs used can induce a wide range of adverse effects. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the current evidence regarding the efficacy of pregabalin in managing postoperative pain following DCR surgery. We conducted a thorough search of five electronic databases, namely, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane, and Google Scholar, to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published before September 2023. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for RCTs. The outcomes we evaluated included postoperative pain, surgery duration, time to first analgesia, total pethidine consumption, and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Continues data reported as mean difference (MD), and dichotomous data reported as risk ratio (RR), with 95% confidence interval (CI). A pooled meta-analysis of three RCTs, including 240 patients in both the pregabalin and placebo groups, was conducted. The results revealed that the pooled MD in pain scores was significantly lower in patients treated with pregabalin compared to those receiving a placebo ((MD = -1.35 (95% CI: -1.83 to -0.87, p < 0.00001)). Additionally, the pooled MD of pethidine consumption was significantly lower in patients treated with pregabalin compared to those receiving a placebo (MD = -54.13 (95% CI: -103.77 to -4.50, p = 0.03)). However, there was no statistical significance between both groups in terms of time to first analgesia and duration of surgery (p > 0.05). On the other hand, the pooled RR of PONV was significantly lower in patients treated with pregabalin compared to those receiving a placebo (RR = 0.37 (95% CI: 0.24-0.57, p < 0.001)). This meta-analysis demonstrates that pregabalin is an effective and well-tolerated intervention for reducing postoperative pain and PONV following DCR surgery, without significantly affecting surgery duration or time to first analgesia. These findings support the use of pregabalin in improving patient comfort and outcomes in this surgical context.
PubMed: 38024096
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.48720