-
Pain Jan 2016Patients with herpes zoster can develop persistent pain after rash healing, a complication known as postherpetic neuralgia. By preventing zoster through vaccination, the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Patients with herpes zoster can develop persistent pain after rash healing, a complication known as postherpetic neuralgia. By preventing zoster through vaccination, the risk of this common complication is reduced. We searched MEDLINE and Embase for studies assessing risk factors for postherpetic neuralgia, with a view to informing vaccination policy. Nineteen prospective studies were identified. Meta-analysis showed significant increases in the risk of postherpetic neuralgia with clinical features of acute zoster including prodromal pain (summary rate ratio 2.29, 95% confidence interval: 1.42-3.69), severe acute pain (2.23, 1.71-2.92), severe rash (2.63, 1.89-3.66), and ophthalmic involvement (2.51, 1.29-4.86). Older age was significantly associated with postherpetic neuralgia; for individual studies, relative risk estimates per 10-year increase ranged from 1.22 to 3.11. Evidence for differences by gender was conflicting, with considerable between-study heterogeneity. A proportion of studies reported an increased risk of postherpetic neuralgia with severe immunosuppression (studies, n = 3/5) and diabetes mellitus (n = 1/4). Systemic lupus erythematosus, recent trauma, and personality disorder symptoms were associated with postherpetic neuralgia in single studies. No evidence of higher postherpetic neuralgia risk was found with depression (n = 4) or cancer (n = 5). Our review confirms a number of clinical features of acute zoster are risk factors for postherpetic neuralgia. It has also identified a range of possible vaccine-targetable risk factors for postherpetic neuralgia; yet aside from age-associated risks, evidence regarding risk factors to inform zoster vaccination policy is currently limited.
Topics: Age Factors; Herpes Zoster; Humans; Neuralgia, Postherpetic; Risk Factors; Sex Factors
PubMed: 26218719
DOI: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000307 -
Pain Physician May 2019Postherpetic neuralgia, a persistent pain condition often characterized by allodynia and hyperalgesia, is a deleterious consequence experienced by patients after an...
BACKGROUND
Postherpetic neuralgia, a persistent pain condition often characterized by allodynia and hyperalgesia, is a deleterious consequence experienced by patients after an acute herpes zoster vesicular eruption has healed. The pain associated with postherpetic neuralgia can severely affect a patient's quality of life, quality of sleep, and ability to participate in activities of daily living. Currently, first-line treatments for this condition include the administration of medication therapies such as tricyclic antidepressants, pregabalin, gabapentin, and lidocaine patches, followed by the application of tramadol and capsaicin creams and patches as second- or third-line therapies. As not all patients respond to such conservative options, however, interventional therapies are valuable for those who continue to experience pain.
OBJECTIVE
This review focuses on interventional therapies that have been subjected to randomized controlled trials for the treatment of postherpetic neuralgia, including transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation; local botulinum toxin A, cobalamin, and triamcinolone injection; intrathecal methylprednisolone and midazolam injection; stellate ganglion block; dorsal root ganglion destruction; and pulsed radiofrequency therapy.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review.
SETTING
Hospital department in Taiwan.
METHODS
Search of PubMed database for all randomized controlled trials regarding postherpetic neuralgia that were published before the end of May 2017.
RESULTS
The current evidence is insufficient for determining the single best interventional treatment. Considering invasiveness, price, and safety, the subcutaneous injection of botulinum toxin A or triamcinolone, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, peripheral nerve stimulation, and stellate ganglion block are recommended first, followed by paravertebral block and pulsed radiofrequency. If severe pain persists, spinal cord stimulation could be considered. Given the destructiveness of dorsal root ganglion and adverse events of intrathecal methylprednisolone injection, these interventions should be carried out with great care and only following comprehensive discussion.
LIMITATIONS
Although few adverse effects were reported, these procedures are invasive, and a careful assessment of the risk-benefit ratio should be conducted prior to administration.
CONCLUSION
With the exception of intrathecal methylprednisolone injection for postherpetic neuralgia, the evidence for most interventional procedures used to treat postherpetic neuralgia is Level 2, according to "The Oxford Levels of Evidence 2". Therefore, these modalities have received only grade B recommendations. Despite the lack of a high level of evidence, spinal cord stimulation and peripheral nerve stimulation are possibly useful for the treatment of postherpetic neuralgia.
KEY WORDS
Interventional treatment, postherpetic neuralgia, botulinum toxin, steroid, stellate ganglion block, peripheral nerve stimulation, paravertebral block, radiofrequency, spinal cord stimulation.
Topics: Female; Humans; Male; Neuralgia, Postherpetic; Pain Management; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31151330
DOI: No ID Found -
The Lancet. Healthy Longevity Apr 2022Given the substantial impact of herpes zoster on health and quality of life, and its considerable economic burden, prevention through vaccination is a priority. We aimed... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Given the substantial impact of herpes zoster on health and quality of life, and its considerable economic burden, prevention through vaccination is a priority. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the herpes zoster vaccines (recombinant zoster vaccine [RZV] and zoster vaccine live [ZVL]) against incident herpes zoster and postherpetic neuralgia in older adults.
METHODS
We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies assessing the effectiveness of herpes zoster vaccines in adults aged 50 years or older, compared with no vaccination or another vaccine. We searched published literature on MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ProQuest Central, and Dimensions, as well as unpublished studies, grey literature, and the reference lists of included studies. Observational studies published in any language between May 25, 2006, and Dec 31, 2020, were included. Eligible studies were appraised for methodological quality using standardised critical appraisal instruments from the Joanna Briggs Institute, and data were extracted from selected studies using a standardised tool. Random-effects meta-analysis models were used to estimate pooled vaccine effectiveness for outcomes of interest (herpes zoster, herpes zoster ophthalmicus, and postherpetic neuralgia) among clinically and methodologically comparable studies, with a fixed-effects model also used for herpes zoster ophthalmicus. Vaccine effectiveness was also assessed in people with comorbidities. As a post-hoc analysis, a forward citation search was done on Jan 31, 2021. This study is registered on PROSPERO, CRD42021232383.
FINDINGS
Our search identified 1240 studies, of which 1162 were excluded based on title and abstract screening. A further 56 articles were excluded on reading the full text. 22 studies (21 cohort studies and one case-control study, involving 9 536 086 participants and 3·35 million person-years in the USA, UK, Canada, and Sweden) were included in the quantitative analysis. Of these, 13 articles were included in the meta-analysis. The overall quality of evidence was very low for all outcomes. The pooled vaccine effectiveness for ZVL against herpes zoster in adults was 45·9% (95% CI 42·2-49·4; seven studies). The vaccine effectiveness for ZVL against postherpetic neuralgia was 59·7% (58·4-89·7; three studies) and against herpes zoster ophthalmicus (in a fixed-effects model) was 30·0% (20·5-38·4; two studies). ZVL was effective in preventing herpes zoster in people with comorbidities, including diabetes (vaccine effectiveness 49·8%, 45·1-54·1; three studies), chronic kidney disease (54·3%, 49·0-59·1; four studies), liver disease (52·9%, 41·6-62·1; two studies), heart disease (52·3%, 45·0-58·7; two studies), and lung disease (49·0%, 32·2-66·2; two studies). In a post-hoc analysis of two studies from the USA published after 2020, the pooled vaccine effectiveness for RZV against herpes zoster in adults was 79·2% (57·6-89·7). Substantial heterogeneity (I≥75%) was observed in 50% of the meta-analyses.
INTERPRETATION
ZVL and RZV are effective in preventing herpes zoster in routine clinical practice. ZVL also reduces the risk of postherpetic neuralgia. Selection bias and confounding by unmeasured variables are inherent challenges of observational studies based on large health-care databases. Nevertheless, these findings will reassure policy makers, health practitioners, and the public that the vaccinations currently available for herpes zoster vaccination programmes are effective at preventing herpes zoster and related complications.
FUNDING
None.
Topics: Aged; Case-Control Studies; Herpes Zoster Ophthalmicus; Herpes Zoster Vaccine; Herpesvirus 3, Human; Humans; Neuralgia, Postherpetic; Quality of Life; Vaccine Efficacy; Vaccines, Synthetic
PubMed: 36098300
DOI: 10.1016/S2666-7568(22)00039-3 -
BMJ Open Jun 2014The objective of this study was to characterise the incidence rates of herpes zoster (HZ), also known as shingles, and risk of complications across the world. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study was to characterise the incidence rates of herpes zoster (HZ), also known as shingles, and risk of complications across the world.
DESIGN
We systematically reviewed studies examining the incidence rates of HZ, temporal trends of HZ, the risk of complications including postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) and HZ-associated hospitalisation and mortality rates in the general population. The literature search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE and the WHO library up to December 2013.
RESULTS
We included 130 studies conducted in 26 countries. The incidence rate of HZ ranged between 3 and 5/1000 person-years in North America, Europe and Asia-Pacific, based on studies using prospective surveillance, electronic medical record data or administrative data with medical record review. A temporal increase in the incidence of HZ was reported in the past several decades across seven countries, often occurring before the introduction of varicella vaccination programmes. The risk of developing PHN varied from 5% to more than 30%, depending on the type of study design, age distribution of study populations and definition. More than 30% of patients with PHN experienced persistent pain for more than 1 year. The risk of recurrence of HZ ranged from 1% to 6%, with long-term follow-up studies showing higher risk (5-6%). Hospitalisation rates ranged from 2 to 25/100 000 person-years, with higher rates among elderly populations.
CONCLUSIONS
HZ is a significant global health burden that is expected to increase as the population ages. Future research with rigorous methods is important.
Topics: Global Health; Herpes Zoster; Humans; Incidence; Risk Factors
PubMed: 24916088
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-004833 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2019This review updates part of an earlier Cochrane Review titled "Pregabalin for acute and chronic pain in adults", and considers only neuropathic pain (pain from damage to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This review updates part of an earlier Cochrane Review titled "Pregabalin for acute and chronic pain in adults", and considers only neuropathic pain (pain from damage to nervous tissue). Antiepileptic drugs have long been used in pain management. Pregabalin is an antiepileptic drug used in management of chronic pain conditions.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of pregabalin for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase for randomised controlled trials from January 2009 to April 2018, online clinical trials registries, and reference lists.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised, double-blind trials of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing pregabalin (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 biases. Primary outcomes were: at least 30% pain intensity reduction over baseline; much or very much improved on the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) Scale (moderate benefit); at least 50% pain intensity reduction; or very much improved on PGIC (substantial benefit). We calculated risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial (NNTB) or harmful outcome (NNTH). We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 45 studies lasting 2 to 16 weeks, with 11,906 participants - 68% from 31 new studies. Oral pregabalin doses of 150 mg, 300 mg, and 600 mg daily were compared with placebo. Postherpetic neuralgia, painful diabetic neuropathy, and mixed neuropathic pain predominated (85% of participants). High risk of bias was due mainly to small study size (nine studies), but many studies had unclear risk of bias, mainly due to incomplete outcome data, size, and allocation concealment.Postherpetic neuralgia: More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 300 mg than with placebo (50% vs 25%; RR 2.1 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.6 to 2.6); NNTB 3.9 (3.0 to 5.6); 3 studies, 589 participants, moderate-quality evidence), and more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (32% vs 13%; RR 2.5 (95% CI 1.9 to 3.4); NNTB 5.3 (3.9 to 8.1); 4 studies, 713 participants, moderate-quality evidence). More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 600 mg than with placebo (62% vs 24%; RR 2.5 (95% CI 2.0 to 3.2); NNTB 2.7 (2.2 to 3.7); 3 studies, 537 participants, moderate-quality evidence), and more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (41% vs 15%; RR 2.7 (95% CI 2.0 to 3.5); NNTB 3.9 (3.1 to 5.5); 4 studies, 732 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Somnolence and dizziness were more common with pregabalin than with placebo (moderate-quality evidence): somnolence 300 mg 16% versus 5.5%, 600 mg 25% versus 5.8%; dizziness 300 mg 29% versus 8.1%, 600 mg 35% versus 8.8%.Painful diabetic neuropathy: More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 300 mg than with placebo (47% vs 42%; RR 1.1 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.2); NNTB 22 (12 to 200); 8 studies, 2320 participants, moderate-quality evidence), more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (31% vs 24%; RR 1.3 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.5); NNTB 22 (12 to 200); 11 studies, 2931 participants, moderate-quality evidence), and more had PGIC much or very much improved (51% vs 30%; RR 1.8 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.0); NNTB 4.9 (3.8 to 6.9); 5 studies, 1050 participants, moderate-quality evidence). More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 600 mg than with placebo (63% vs 52%; RR 1.2 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.4); NNTB 9.6 (5.5 to 41); 2 studies, 611 participants, low-quality evidence), and more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (41% vs 28%; RR 1.4 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.7); NNTB 7.8 (5.4 to 14); 5 studies, 1015 participants, low-quality evidence). Somnolence and dizziness were more common with pregabalin than with placebo (moderate-quality evidence): somnolence 300 mg 11% versus 3.1%, 600 mg 15% versus 4.5%; dizziness 300 mg 13% versus 3.8%, 600 mg 22% versus 4.4%.Mixed or unclassified post-traumatic neuropathic pain: More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 600 mg than with placebo (48% vs 36%; RR 1.2 (1.1 to 1.4); NNTB 8.2 (5.7 to 15); 4 studies, 1367 participants, low-quality evidence), and more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (34% vs 20%; RR 1.5 (1.2 to 1.9); NNTB 7.2 (5.4 to 11); 4 studies, 1367 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Somnolence (12% vs 3.9%) and dizziness (23% vs 6.2%) were more common with pregabalin.Central neuropathic pain: More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 600 mg than with placebo (44% vs 28%; RR 1.6 (1.3 to 2.0); NNTB 5.9 (4.1 to 11); 3 studies, 562 participants, low-quality evidence) and at least 50% pain intensity reduction (26% vs 15%; RR 1.7 (1.2 to 2.3); NNTB 9.8 (6.0 to 28); 3 studies, 562 participants, low-quality evidence). Somnolence (32% vs 11%) and dizziness (23% vs 8.6%) were more common with pregabalin.Other neuropathic pain conditions: Studies show no evidence of benefit for 600 mg pregabalin in HIV neuropathy (2 studies, 674 participants, moderate-quality evidence) and limited evidence of benefit in neuropathic back pain or sciatica, neuropathic cancer pain, or polyneuropathy.Serious adverse events, all conditions: Serious adverse events were no more common with placebo than with pregabalin 300 mg (3.1% vs 2.6%; RR 1.2 (95% CI 0.8 to 1.7); 17 studies, 4112 participants, high-quality evidence) or pregabalin 600 mg (3.4% vs 3.4%; RR 1.1 (95% CI 0.8 to 1.5); 16 studies, 3995 participants, high-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Evidence shows efficacy of pregabalin in postherpetic neuralgia, painful diabetic neuralgia, and mixed or unclassified post-traumatic neuropathic pain, and absence of efficacy in HIV neuropathy; evidence of efficacy in central neuropathic pain is inadequate. Some people will derive substantial benefit with pregabalin; more will have moderate benefit, but many will have no benefit or will discontinue treatment. There were no substantial changes since the 2009 review.
Topics: Acute Disease; Adult; Analgesics; Chronic Disease; Diabetic Neuropathies; Dizziness; Humans; Neuralgia; Neuralgia, Postherpetic; Pain; Pregabalin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sleepiness
PubMed: 30673120
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007076.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2017Gabapentin 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,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
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.
Topics: Adult; Amines; Analgesics; Chronic Disease; Chronic Pain; Cyclohexanecarboxylic Acids; Diabetic Neuropathies; Fibromyalgia; Gabapentin; Humans; Neuralgia; Neuralgia, Postherpetic; Numbers Needed To Treat; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid
PubMed: 28597471
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007938.pub4 -
Journal of Cutaneous and Aesthetic... 2020Post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN) is usually a constant or intermittent burning, stabbing, or sharp shooting pain with hyperalgesia or allodynia, persisting beyond the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN) is usually a constant or intermittent burning, stabbing, or sharp shooting pain with hyperalgesia or allodynia, persisting beyond the healing of herpetic skin lesions. This review was carried out in concordance to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We used PICOS (Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcome Study) design for inclusion of potential studies into this review. Online literature available in PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase was searched for studies from January 1995 till March 2020, which evaluated interventional treatments in PHN by an independent reviewer, using the relevant medical subject heading (MeSH) terms. We analyzed the following outcome parameters with regard to each intervention-pain status at predefined fixed intervals after the intervention, quality of sleep using any of the reported questionnaires, analgesic consumption, functional evaluation, and quality of life assessment after the intervention.
CONCLUSION
Interventional pain management options provide effective and long-lasting pain relief to patients not responding to medical management. The choice of intervention will depend on the region involved, cost, and invasiveness. Simple procedures such as intercostal nerve blocks/neurolysis, stellate ganglion blocks, paravertebral neurolysis, epidural steroid injections, and dorsal root ganglion-radiofrequency ablation are effective interventions, and if they fail, spinal cord stimulators could be effective in the hands of experienced pain physicians.
PubMed: 33911406
DOI: 10.4103/JCAS.JCAS_45_20 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2017Topical analgesic drugs are used for a variety of painful conditions. Some are acute, typically strains or sprains, tendinopathy, or muscle aches. Others are chronic,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Topical analgesic drugs are used for a variety of painful conditions. Some are acute, typically strains or sprains, tendinopathy, or muscle aches. Others are chronic, typically osteoarthritis of hand or knee, or neuropathic pain.
OBJECTIVES
To provide an overview of the analgesic efficacy and associated adverse events of topical analgesics (primarily nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), salicylate rubefacients, capsaicin, and lidocaine) applied to intact skin for the treatment of acute and chronic pain in adults.
METHODS
We identified systematic reviews in acute and chronic pain published to February 2017 in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (the Cochrane Library). The primary outcome was at least 50% pain relief (participant-reported) at an appropriate duration. We extracted the number needed to treat for one additional beneficial outcome (NNT) for efficacy outcomes for each topical analgesic or formulation, and the number needed to treat for one additional harmful outcome (NNH) for adverse events. We also extracted information on withdrawals due to lack of efficacy or adverse events, systemic and local adverse events, and serious adverse events. We required information from at least 200 participants, in at least two studies. We judged that there was potential for publication bias if the addition of four studies of typical size (400 participants) with zero effect increased NNT compared with placebo to 10 (minimal clinical utility). We extracted GRADE assessment in the original papers, and made our own GRADE assessment.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirteen Cochrane Reviews (206 studies with around 30,700 participants) assessed the efficacy and harms from a range of topical analgesics applied to intact skin in a number of acute and chronic painful conditions. Reviews were overseen by several Review Groups, and concentrated on evidence comparing topical analgesic with topical placebo; comparisons of topical and oral analgesics were rare.For at least 50% pain relief, we considered evidence was moderate or high quality for several therapies, based on the underlying quality of studies and susceptibility to publication bias.In acute musculoskeletal pain (strains and sprains) with assessment at about seven days, therapies were diclofenac Emulgel (78% Emulgel, 20% placebo; 2 studies, 314 participants, NNT 1.8 (95% confidence interval 1.5 to 2.1)), ketoprofen gel (72% ketoprofen, 33% placebo, 5 studies, 348 participants, NNT 2.5 (2.0 to 3.4)), piroxicam gel (70% piroxicam, 47% placebo, 3 studies, 522 participants, NNT 4.4 (3.2 to 6.9)), diclofenac Flector plaster (63% Flector, 41% placebo, 4 studies, 1030 participants, NNT 4.7 (3.7 to 6.5)), and diclofenac other plaster (88% diclofenac plaster, 57% placebo, 3 studies, 474 participants, NNT 3.2 (2.6 to 4.2)).In chronic musculoskeletal pain (mainly hand and knee osteoarthritis) therapies were topical diclofenac preparations for less than six weeks (43% diclofenac, 23% placebo, 5 studies, 732 participants, NNT 5.0 (3.7 to 7.4)), ketoprofen over 6 to 12 weeks (63% ketoprofen, 48% placebo, 4 studies, 2573 participants, NNT 6.9 (5.4 to 9.3)), and topical diclofenac preparations over 6 to 12 weeks (60% diclofenac, 50% placebo, 4 studies, 2343 participants, NNT 9.8 (7.1 to 16)). In postherpetic neuralgia, topical high-concentration capsaicin had moderate-quality evidence of limited efficacy (33% capsaicin, 24% placebo, 2 studies, 571 participants, NNT 11 (6.1 to 62)).We judged evidence of efficacy for other therapies as low or very low quality. Limited evidence of efficacy, potentially subject to publication bias, existed for topical preparations of ibuprofen gels and creams, unspecified diclofenac formulations and diclofenac gel other than Emulgel, indomethacin, and ketoprofen plaster in acute pain conditions, and for salicylate rubefacients for chronic pain conditions. Evidence for other interventions (other topical NSAIDs, topical salicylate in acute pain conditions, low concentration capsaicin, lidocaine, clonidine for neuropathic pain, and herbal remedies for any condition) was very low quality and typically limited to single studies or comparisons with sparse data.We assessed the evidence on withdrawals as moderate or very low quality, because of small numbers of events. In chronic pain conditions lack of efficacy withdrawals were lower with topical diclofenac (6%) than placebo (9%) (11 studies, 3455 participants, number needed to treat to prevent (NNTp) 26, moderate-quality evidence), and topical salicylate (2% vs 7% for placebo) (5 studies, 501 participants, NNTp 21, very low-quality evidence). Adverse event withdrawals were higher with topical capsaicin low-concentration (15%) than placebo (3%) (4 studies, 477 participants, NNH 8, very low-quality evidence), topical salicylate (5% vs 1% for placebo) (7 studies, 735 participants, NNH 26, very low-quality evidence), and topical diclofenac (5% vs 4% for placebo) (12 studies, 3552 participants, NNH 51, very low-quality evidence).In acute pain, systemic or local adverse event rates with topical NSAIDs (4.3%) were no greater than with topical placebo (4.6%) (42 studies, 6740 participants, high quality evidence). In chronic pain local adverse events with topical capsaicin low concentration (63%) were higher than topical placebo (5 studies, 557 participants, number needed to treat for harm (NNH) 2.6), high quality evidence. Moderate-quality evidence indicated more local adverse events than placebo in chronic pain conditions with topical diclofenac (NNH 16) and local pain with topical capsaicin high-concentration (NNH 16). There was moderate-quality evidence of no additional local adverse events with topical ketoprofen over topical placebo in chronic pain. Serious adverse events were rare (very low-quality evidence).GRADE assessments of moderate or low quality in some of the reviews were considered by us to be very low because of small numbers of participants and events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is good evidence that some formulations of topical diclofenac and ketoprofen are useful in acute pain conditions such as sprains or strains, with low (good) NNT values. There is a strong message that the exact formulation used is critically important in acute conditions, and that might also apply to other pain conditions. In chronic musculoskeletal conditions with assessments over 6 to 12 weeks, topical diclofenac and ketoprofen had limited efficacy in hand and knee osteoarthritis, as did topical high-concentration capsaicin in postherpetic neuralgia. Though NNTs were higher, this still indicates that a small proportion of people had good pain relief.Use of GRADE in Cochrane Reviews with small numbers of participants and events requires attention.
Topics: Acute Pain; Adult; Analgesics; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Capsaicin; Chronic Pain; Diclofenac; Humans; Ketoprofen; Musculoskeletal Pain; Neuralgia; Numbers Needed To Treat; Osteoarthritis; Piroxicam; Publication Bias; Review Literature as Topic
PubMed: 28497473
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008609.pub2 -
Nutrients Jul 2020Neuropathic pain describes a range of unpleasant sensations caused by a lesion or disease of the somatosensory nervous system. The sensations caused by neuropathic pain...
Neuropathic pain describes a range of unpleasant sensations caused by a lesion or disease of the somatosensory nervous system. The sensations caused by neuropathic pain are debilitating and improved treatment regimens are sought in order to improve the quality of life of patients. One proposed treatment for neuropathic pain is vitamin B12, which is thought to alleviate pain by a number of mechanisms including promoting myelination, increasing nerve regeneration and decreasing ectopic nerve firing. In this paper, the evidence for B12 as a drug treatment for neuropathic pain is reviewed. Twenty four published articles were eligible for inclusion in this systematic review in which a range of treatment regimens were evaluated including both B12 monotherapy and B12 in combination with other vitamins or conventional treatments, such as gabapentinoids. Overall, this systematic review demonstrates that there is currently some evidence for the therapeutic effect of B12 in the treatment of post-herpetic neuralgia (level II evidence) and the treatment of painful peripheral neuropathy (level III evidence).
Topics: Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Neuralgia; Observational Studies as Topic; Peripheral Nervous System Diseases; Treatment Outcome; Vitamin B 12
PubMed: 32722436
DOI: 10.3390/nu12082221 -
Medicine Aug 2018Acupuncture is widely used for postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) in China but its effect is unclear. We aim to evaluate the effect and safety of acupuncture for PHN. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Acupuncture is widely used for postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) in China but its effect is unclear. We aim to evaluate the effect and safety of acupuncture for PHN.
METHODS
The Cochrane Skin Group Trials Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and the gray literature were searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing acupuncture alone versus no treatment/another active therapy/sham acupuncture, or comparing acupuncture with another active therapy versus the same active therapy were included.
RESULTS
Seven RCTs comparing acupuncture versus pharmacologic therapy were included. Meta-analysis was conducted for acupuncture's effect on PHN evaluating by pain intensity. Results from 2 RCTs showed that compared with pharmacologic therapy, acupuncture was better in decreasing the pain intensity measured by visual analog scale score (mean difference: 1.80, 95% confidence interval 1.72-1.87; P < .001). The limitations of the study are as follows: only trials comparing acupuncture versus pharmacologic therapy were included and all of the included trials were performed in China.
CONCLUSION
There was not enough evidence to suggest that acupuncture was superior to pharmacologic therapy in improving global impression or life quality. No adverse effects about acupuncture were reported. In all, acupuncture is safe and might be effective in pain relieving for patients with PHN. Given the low quality of included studies, the results are not conclusive and more large-scale RCTs with high quality are needed.
Topics: Acupuncture Therapy; Adult; Aged; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Neuralgia, Postherpetic; Pain Management; Quality of Life; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30142834
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000011986