Pregabalin, the lidocaine plaster and duloxetine in patients with refractory neuropathic pain: a systematic review

Heron Evidence Development Ltd, Butterfield Technology Park, Luton, UK.
BMC Neurology (Impact Factor: 2.49). 11/2010; 10:116. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2377-10-116
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Patients frequently fail to receive adequate pain relief from, or are intolerant of, first-line therapies prescribed for neuropathic pain (NeP). This refractory chronic pain causes psychological distress and impacts patient quality of life. Published literature for treatment in refractory patients is sparse and often published as conference abstracts only. The aim of this study was to identify published data for three pharmacological treatments: pregabalin, lidocaine plaster, and duloxetine, which are typically used at 2(nd) line or later in UK patients with neuropathic pain.
A systematic review of the literature databases MEDLINE, EMBASE and CCTR was carried out and supplemented with extensive conference and grey literature searching. Studies of any design (except single patient case studies) that enrolled adult patients with refractory NeP were included in the review and qualitatively assessed.
Seventeen studies were included in the review: nine of pregabalin, seven of the lidocaine plaster, and one of duloxetine. No head-to-head studies of these treatments were identified. Only six studies included treatments within UK licensed indications and dose ranges. Reported efficacy outcomes were not consistent between studies. Pain scores were most commonly assessed in studies including pregabalin; trials of pregabalin and the lidocaine plaster reported the proportion of responders. Significant improvements in the total, sensory and affective scores of the Short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire, and in function interference, sleep interference and pain associated distress, were associated with pregabalin treatment; limited or no quality of life data were available for the other two interventions. Limitations to the review are the small number of included studies, which are generally small, of poor quality and heterogeneous in patient population and study design.
Little evidence is available relevant to the treatment of refractory neuropathic pain despite the clinical need. There is a notable lack of high-quality comparative studies. It is evident that there is a need for future, high quality trials, particularly "gold-standard" RCTs in this refractory patient population.

  • Source
    02/2008; 7(2):18-18. DOI:10.1016/S1541-9800(08)70056-5
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The study investigates the protective effect of Acorus calamus L. (AC) in vincristine-induced painful neuropathy. Vincristine (75μg/kg, i.p. for 10 consecutive days) was administered to induce painful neuropathy in rats. Various tests were performed to assess the degree of painful neuropathy at different days i.e., 0, 1, 7, 14, and 21st day. Sciatic nerve TNF-α, superoxide anion generation, total calcium, and myeloperoxidase activity level were also estimated after 21st day of study. Hydro-alcoholic extract of AC (HAE-AC, 100 and 200mg/kg, p.o.) and pregabalin (10mg/kg, p.o.) were administered for 14 consecutive days. Vincristine significantly induced neuropathic pain manifested in the terms of thermal hyperalgesia and allodynia (increase in hind paw licking, lifting or jumping from hot plate); mechanical hyperalgesia (increase in left hind paw lifting duration in pin-prick test) and allodynia (left hind paw withdrawal reflexes to non-noxious stimuli in Von Frey test); and sciatic functional index (analysis of footprints of the feet) along with rise in the levels of various biochemicals. HAE-AC attenuated vincristine induced behavioral, and biochemical changes comparable to that of pregabalin (positive control). HAE-AC attenuated vincristine induced painful neuropathy, which may be attributed to its multiple effects including anti-oxidative, anti-inflammatory, and calcium inhibitory actions.
    Food and chemical toxicology: an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association 07/2011; 49(10):2557-63. DOI:10.1016/j.fct.2011.06.069 · 2.61 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There is currently no strong consensus regarding the optimal management of complex regional pain syndrome although a multitude of interventions have been described and are commonly used. To summarise the evidence from Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews of the effectiveness of any therapeutic intervention used to reduce pain, disability or both in adults with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). We identified Cochrane reviews and non-Cochrane reviews through a systematic search of the following databases: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS and PEDro. We included non-Cochrane systematic reviews where they contained evidence not covered by identified Cochrane reviews. The methodological quality of reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR tool.We extracted data for the primary outcomes pain, disability and adverse events, and the secondary outcomes of quality of life, emotional well being and participants' ratings of satisfaction or improvement. Only evidence arising from randomised controlled trials was considered. We used the GRADE system to assess the quality of evidence. We included six Cochrane reviews and 13 non-Cochrane systematic reviews. Cochrane reviews demonstrated better methodological quality than non-Cochrane reviews. Trials were typically small and the quality variable.There is moderate quality evidence that intravenous regional blockade with guanethidine is not effective in CRPS and that the procedure appears to be associated with the risk of significant adverse events.There is low quality evidence that bisphosphonates, calcitonin or a daily course of intravenous ketamine may be effective for pain when compared with placebo; graded motor imagery may be effective for pain and function when compared with usual care; and that mirror therapy may be effective for pain in post-stroke CRPS compared with a 'covered mirror' control. This evidence should be interpreted with caution. There is low quality evidence that local anaesthetic sympathetic blockade is not effective. Low quality evidence suggests that physiotherapy or occupational therapy are associated with small positive effects that are unlikely to be clinically important at one year follow up when compared with a social work passive attention control.For a wide range of other interventions, there is either no evidence or very low quality evidence available from which no conclusions should be drawn. There is a critical lack of high quality evidence for the effectiveness of most therapies for CRPS. Until further larger trials are undertaken, formulating an evidence-based approach to managing CRPS will remain difficult.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 01/2013; 4(4):CD009416. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD009416.pub2 · 5.94 Impact Factor
Show more

Preview (3 Sources)

Available from