Summary Background Neuropathic pain is difficult to treat. New treatments, clinical trials and standards of quality for assessing evidence justify an update of evidence-based recommendations for its pharmacological treatment. Methods The Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group (NeuPSIG) of the International Association for the Study of Pain conducted a systematic review of randomised double-blind studies of oral and topical pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain, including unpublished trials (retrieved from clinicaltrials.gov and pharmaceutical websites). Meta-analysis used Numbers Needed to Treat (NNT) for 50 % pain relief as primary measure and assessed publication bias. Recommendations used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Findings In total 229 studies were included. Analysis of publication bias suggested a 10% overstatement of treatment effects. Studies published in peer-review journals reported greater effects than online studies (R2=9·3%, p<0·01). Trial outcomes were generally modest even for effective drugs : in particular NNTs were 3·6 (95 % CI 3·0–4·4) for tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), 6·4 (95 % CI 5·2–8·4) for serotonin- noradrenaline reuptake inbibitor (SNRI) antidepressants duloxetine and venlafaxine, 7·7 (95 % CI 6·5–9·4) for pregabalin and 6·3 (95 % CI 5·0–8·3) for gabapentin. NNTs were higher for gabapentin ER/enacarbil and capsaicin high concentration patches, lower for opioids and botulinum toxin A (BTX-A) and undetermined for lidocaine patches. Final quality of evidence was lower for lidocaine patches and BTX-A. Tolerability/safety and values/preferences were high for lidocaine patches and lower for opioids and TCAs. This permitted a strong GRADE recommendation for use and proposal as first line for TCAs, SNRIs, pregabalin, gabapentin and gabapentin ER/enacarbil in neuropathic pain, a weak recommendation for use and proposal as second line for lidocaine patches, capsaicin patches and tramadol, and a weak recommendations for use and proposal as third line for strong opioids (particularly oxycodone and morphine) and BTX-A. Data for cannabinoids, tapentadol, drug combinations, and several other antiepileptics, antidepressants and topical drugs were inconclusive. Interpretation Limited efficacy, large placebo responses, inadequate diagnostic criteria and poor phenotypic profiling probably account for modest trial outcomes and should be taken into account in future studies. Funding This study was funded by NeuPSIG.

The redefinition of neuropathic pain as “pain arising as a direct consequence of a lesion or disease affecting the somatosensory system,” which was suggested by the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) Special Interest Group on Neuropathic Pain (NeuPSIG) in 2008, has been widely accepted. In contrast, the proposed grading system of possible, probable, and definite neuropathic pain from 2008 has been used to a lesser extent. Here, we report a citation analysis of the original NeuPSIG grading paper of 2008, followed by an analysis of its use by an expert panel and recommendations for an improved grading system. As of February, 2015, 608 eligible articles in Scopus cited the paper, 414 of which cited the neuropathic pain definition. Of 220 clinical studies citing the paper, 56 had used the grading system. The percentage using the grading system increased from 5% in 2009 to 30% in 2014. Obstacles to a wider use of the grading system were identified, including (1) questions about the relative significance of confirmatory tests, (2) the role of screening tools, and (3) uncertainties about what is considered a neuroanatomically plausible pain distribution. Here, we present a revised grading system with an adjusted order, better reflecting clinical practice, improvements in the specifications, and a word of caution that even the “definite” level of neuropathic pain does not always indicate causality. In addition, we add a table illustrating the area of pain and sensory abnormalities in common neuropathic pain conditions and propose areas for further research.

No abstract

Multiple recent pharmacological clinical trials in neuropathic pain have failed to show beneficial effect of drugs with previously demonstrated efficacy, and estimates of drug efficacy seems to have decreased with accumulation of newer trials. However, this has not been systematically assessed. Here, we analyze time-dependent changes in estimated treatment effect size in pharmacological trials together with factors that may contribute to decreases in estimated effect size. This study is a secondary analysis of data from a previous published NeuPSIG systematic review and meta-analysis, updated to include studies published up till March 2017. We included double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials examining the effect of drugs for which we had made strong or weak recommendations for use in neuropathic pain in the previously published review. As the primary outcome, we used an aggregated number needed to treat for 50% pain reduction (alternatively 30% pain reduction or moderate pain relief). Analyses involved 128 trials. Number needed to treat values increased from around 2 to 4 in trials published between 1982 and 1999 to much higher (less effective) values in studies published from 2010 onwards. Several factors that changed over time, such as larger study size, longer study duration, and more studies reporting 50% or 30% pain reduction, correlated with the decrease in estimated drug effect sizes. This suggests that issues related to the design, outcomes, and reporting have contributed to changes in the estimation of treatment effects. These factors are important to consider in design and interpretation of individual study data and in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.