Efficacy and safety of a single intrathecal methylprednisolone bolus in chronic complex regional pain syndrome

Department of Neurology, Leiden University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9600, 2300 RC Leiden, The Netherlands.
European journal of pain (London, England) (Impact Factor: 3.22). 12/2009; 14(5):523-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejpain.2009.11.004
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Activated immune cells in the spinal cord may play an important role in the development and maintenance of neuropathic pain, such as occurs in response to peripheral inflammation or tissue injury. Immune activation may therefore serve as a therapeutic target for immune modulating drugs like corticosteroids. This double-blind randomized placebo-controlled parallel-group trial aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of a single intrathecal administration of 60 mg methylprednisolone (ITM) in chronic patients with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). The primary outcome measure was change in pain (pain intensity numeric rating scale; range 0-10) after 6 weeks. With 21 subjects per group the study had a 90% power to detect a clinically relevant difference (> or = 2 points). After 21 patients (10 on ITM) were included, the trial was stopped prematurely after the interim analysis had shown that ITM had no effect on pain (difference in mean pain intensity numeric rating scale at 6 weeks 0.3, 95% confidence interval -0.7 to 1.3) or any other outcome measure. We did not find any difference in treatment-emergent adverse events between the ITM and placebo group. We conclude that a single bolus administration of ITM is not efficacious in chronic CRPS patients, which may indicate that spinal immune activation does not play an important role in this phase of the syndrome.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Methylprednisolone acetate (MPA) has a long history of use in the treatment of sciatic pain and other neuropathic pain syndromes. In several of these syndromes, MPA is administered in the epidural space. On a limited basis, MPA has also been injected intrathecally in patients suffering from postherpetic neuralgia and complex regional pain syndrome. The reports on efficacy of intrathecal administration of MPA in neuropathic pain patients are contradictory, and safety is debated. In this review, we broadly consider mechanisms whereby glucocorticoids exert their action on spinal cascades relevant to the pain arising after nerve injury and inflammation. We then focus on the characteristics of the actions of MPA in pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety when administered in the intrathecal space.
    Anesthesia and analgesia 05/2014; 118(5):1097-1112. DOI:10.1213/ANE.0000000000000161 · 3.42 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The typical placebo response (i.e. the non-specific effects in the placebo group including benign natural course, regression to the mean, expectation/conditioning effects, and others) in randomised trials in Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) is unknown. We recently observed a surprising near-absence of placebo response in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) we conducted on patients with longstanding (≥6 months) CRPS. To investigate the idea that there may be an absence of placebo response in longstanding CRPS further, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of placebo responses in RCTs conducted in patients with CRPS of ≥6 months. We systematically identified suitable RCTs published between 1966 and September 2013. We calculated the mean difference and standard error of the mean difference for placebo responses and synthesised individual effect sizes at four specified time periods of interest (15-30 minutes, 1 week, 3-4 weeks, and 6 weeks or more) via meta-analysis using the method of inverse-variance. Heterogeneity was assessed according to the I2 statistic. For primary analysis we pooled trial-specific effect sizes over the four time points. We analysed data from 340 participants from 18 trials out of a possible 361 participants from 20 trials (94% of participants analysed). Significant heterogeneity was present between trials; therefore we interpreted trends from visual inspection of individual trials and pooled estimates. Placebo response was significant at the earliest time period (15-30 minutes). There was no significant evidence of placebo response at any of the other time periods. These results inform the design of future trials, and they caution against the ‘therapeutic’ use of placebo in longstanding CRPS.
    Journal of Pain 12/2014; 16(2). DOI:10.1016/j.jpain.2014.11.008 · 4.22 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Complex regional pain syndromes (CRPS) are multifactorial disorders with complex aetiology and pathogenesis. Management of CRPS is challenging, partly because of a lack of clinical data regarding the efficacy of the various therapies, and partly because successful treatment of CRPS requires a multidisciplinary, patient-tailored approach. The pain in CRPS is often described as typical 'burning' neuropathic pain, and is accompanied by a variety of sensory, motor and autonomic signs and symptoms. Because research into therapies specifically in CRPS has been scarce, treatment for these syndromes has been largely based on therapeutic strategies adapted from neuropathic pain states; however, increased understanding of the pathogenesis of CRPS has provided the opportunity to develop mechanism-based treatments. The interactions between the multiple pathophysiological mechanisms that contribute to the development, progression and maintenance of CRPS remain poorly understood. This Review describes the challenges in linking the current theories and knowledge of pathophysiological mechanisms to the mode of actions of the different treatment approaches. We discuss the current treatment strategies for CRPS, including pharmacotherapy, sympathetic ganglion block interventions, psychological support, physiotherapy and occupational therapy, and establish the concept of mechanism-based treatment for CRPS.
    Nature Reviews Neurology 08/2014; 10(9). DOI:10.1038/nrneurol.2014.140 · 14.10 Impact Factor