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.

Oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for fibromyalgia in adults.

BACKGROUND: Oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used in the treatment of pain in fibromyalgia, despite being considered not to be effective. OBJECTIVES: To assess the analgesic efficacy, tolerability (drop-out due to adverse events), and safety (serious adverse events) of oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for fibromyalgia in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase for randomised controlled trials from inception to January 2017. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and online clinical trial registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised, double-blind trials of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing any oral NSAID with placebo or another active treatment for relief of pain in fibromyalgia, with subjective pain assessment by the participant. 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), serious adverse events, and withdrawals due to adverse events; secondary outcomes were adverse events, withdrawals due to lack of efficacy, and outcomes relating to sleep, fatigue, and quality of life. Where pooled analysis was possible, we used dichotomous data to calculate risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT), using standard methods. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS: Our searches identified six randomised, double-blind studies involving 292 participants in suitably characterised fibromyalgia. The mean age of participants was between 39 and 50 years, and 89% to 100% were women. The initial pain intensity was around 7/10 on a 0 to 10 pain scale, indicating severe pain. NSAIDs tested were etoricoxib 90 mg daily, ibuprofen 2400 mg daily, naproxen 1000 mg daily, and tenoxicam 20 mg daily; 146 participants received NSAID and 146 placebo. The duration of treatment in the double-blind phase varied between three and eight weeks.Not all studies reported all the outcomes of interest. Analyses consistently showed no significant difference between NSAID and placebo: substantial benefit (at least 50% pain intensity reduction) (risk difference (RD) -0.07 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.18 to 0.04) 2 studies, 146 participants; moderate benefit (at least 30% pain intensity reduction) (RD -0.04 (95% CI -0.16 to 0.08) 3 studies, 192 participants; withdrawals due to adverse events (RD 0.04 (95% CI -0.02 to 0.09) 4 studies, 230 participants; participants experiencing any adverse event (RD 0.08 (95% CI -0.03 to 0.19) 4 studies, 230 participants; all-cause withdrawals (RD 0.03 (95% CI -0.07 to 0.14) 3 studies, 192 participants. There were no serious adverse events or deaths. Although most studies had some measures of health-related quality of life, fibromyalgia impact, or other outcomes, none reported the outcomes beyond saying that there was no or little difference between the treatment groups.We downgraded evidence on all outcomes to very low quality, meaning that this research does not provide a reliable indication of the likely effect. The likelihood that the effect could be substantially different is very high. This is based on the small numbers of studies, participants, and events, as well as other deficiencies of reporting study quality allowing possible risks of bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is only a modest amount of very low-quality evidence about the use of NSAIDs in fibromyalgia, and that comes from small, largely inadequate studies with potential risk of bias. That bias would normally be to increase the apparent benefits of NSAIDs, but no such benefits were seen. Consequently, NSAIDs cannot be regarded as useful for treating fibromyalgia.

What to learn from in vivo opioidergic brain imaging?

Ligand-PET studies are attracting increasing interest in experimental and clinical research. As the most elaborated of PET techniques, ligand-PET allows the demonstration of receptor distributions, and thus, the delineation of neurochemical pathologies in the disease state. Recent developments are promising that ligand-PET will even allow to characterize dynamic and short-term changes in neurotransmission and will tremendously add to the understanding of neurophysiology on the receptor level. In pain studies, mainly the mu-opioidergic agonist [(11)C]-carfentanil and the unspecific opioid receptor antagonist [(11)C]-diprenorphine are applied. Utilizing these ligands the thalamus, prefrontal and cingulate cortex, basal ganglia and midbrain structures have been shown to possess high amounts of opioidergic receptors in vivo and it is well accepted, that the receptor density is higher in projections of the medial than those of the lateral pain system. Changes in receptor availability were observed in patients suffering from chronic pain. Rheumatoid arthritis, trigeminal neuralgia and central poststroke pain (CPSP) all lead to decreased ligand binding in pain processing regions during the painful period in comparison to pain free intervals or healthy subjects. These decreases may either be the consequence of increased endogenous release or indicate receptor internalization/down-regulation or loss of neurons carrying these receptors. Recent studies also evidenced [(11)C]-carfentanil binding changes due to acute experimental pain. One possible interpretation of these changes is that the PET-ligand might be displaced by endogenous opioidergic ligands. One major region, where this "ligand displacement" was observed, was the thalamus. These findings highlight the importance of the opioidergic system in pain processing and the power of ligand-PET to advance the understanding of pain.

Analgesia by electrostimulation of the trigeminal ganglion in patients with trigeminopathic pain: a PET activation study.

Electrostimulation of the trigeminal ganglion (TGES) has shown good results in treatment of trigeminopathic pain in selected patients. To map the mechanisms of TGES analgesia, we determined changes in relative regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) in ten patients with trigeminopathic pain using positron emission tomography. The patients were scanned before stimulation (habitual pain), after short-term stimulation (1 min, stTGES) and after long-term stimulation (ltTGES). Highly significant pain alleviation was reported after ltTGES. Relative rCBF changes after stTGES, which was without significant pain relief, were attributed mainly to intrinsic TGES effects. A statistical comparison of the subtraction images of ltTGES and stTGES disclosed significant rCBF increases after ltTGES in rostral parts of anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and neighboring orbitofrontal and medial frontal cortices. Regression analysis of rCBF changes and subjective ratings of pain revealed an inverse relationship in the ipsilateral rostral ACC, and only rCBF changes in the caudal part of the contralateral ACC were consistent with the encoding of pain. The present study provides evidence for a pain modulating role of the rostral ACC, critically important in electrostimulation-induced analgesia, and identifies the caudal ACC as a region encoding pain sensation.

Central poststroke pain and reduced opioid receptor binding within pain processing circuitries: a [11C]diprenorphine PET study.

Based on concepts that endogenous opioids participate in neural transmission of pain, the present study in central poststroke pain (CPSP) patients investigated changes in opioid receptor (OR) binding in neural structures centrally involved in the processing of pain. Five patients with central pain after lesions in the brain stem, thalamus or parietal cortex and twelve healthy volunteers underwent a [11C]diprenorphine positron emission tomography study. Binding potentials were calculated using a reference region model in all subjects. Statistical parametric mapping was applied for t-statistical analysis on voxel-basis. Binding potential values for each individual were extracted from a volume of interest at each identified significant peak. Spectral analysis was applied for quantification of global values. Significant regional reduced 11C-diprenorphine binding (corrected for multiple tests) was detected in contralateral thalamus, parietal, secondary somatosensory, insular and lateral prefrontal cortices, and along the midline in anterior cingulate, posterior cingulate and midbrain gray matter. Individual extracted binding values disclosed a reduced binding in these regions in all patients independent from the particular lesion site. The poststroke pain syndrome is associated with a characteristic pattern of reduced OR binding within the neural circuitry processing pain. It is suggested that an imbalance of excitatory-inhibitory mechanisms in certain brain structures, as evidenced in decreased [11C]diprenorphine binding, is one of the causes or the consequences of poststroke pain.