Preclinical pain research has applied state-of-the-art methods over the past 40 years to describe, characterize, and image molecules, cells, and circuits in rodents to understand the pathophysiology ...of chronic pain. Despite generating a plethora of novel analgesic targets, pharmaceuticals for chronic pain treatment remain largely limited to the same 6 drug classes as present 40 years ago. It is possible that 40 years of effort has brought us to the verge of a paradigm shift and an explosion of novel analgesic drug classes with remarkable safety, efficacy, and tolerability. We think it more likely that advances will not occur until we follow the description of exciting discoveries with hypothesis testing using clinically relevant preclinical animal models and ethologically relevant outcome measures, which better reflect the clinical characteristics of chronic pain syndromes. Furthermore, to be valuable, experiments using such models must be conducted to the highest levels of internal validity, rigor, and reproducibility. Efforts by funders, most recently the Helping End Addiction Long-Term by the National Institutes of Health, aim to address some of these challenges and enhance communication and collaboration between preclinical and clinical investigators. However, the greater problem is a culture that emphasizes novelty and number of publications over scientific rigor and robust replication leading to a high likelihood of false-positive results. A path forward is provided by the evolution of clinical research beginning 50 years ago that resulted in methods to reduce bias and enhance transparency and ethics of reporting, moving from case reports to randomized controlled trials to innovative study designs with a focus on rigor, generalizability, and reproducibility. We argue that culture changed in clinical science in part because powerful forces outside the peer review system, especially from federal regulators that approve new drugs and human studies committees that addressed ethical failures of earlier research, mandated change in studies within their purview. Whether an external force will affect change in peclinical pain research is unclear.
Background
Implanted spinal neuromodulation (SNMD) techniques are used in the treatment of refractory chronic pain. They involve the implantation of electrodes around the spinal cord (spinal cord ...stimulation (SCS)) or dorsal root ganglion (dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRGS)), and a pulse generator unit under the skin. Electrical stimulation is then used with the aim of reducing pain intensity.
Objectives
To evaluate the efficacy, effectiveness, adverse events, and cost‐effectiveness of implanted spinal neuromodulation interventions for people with chronic pain.
Search methods
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, Web of Science (ISI), Health Technology Assessments, ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry from inception to September 2021 without language restrictions, searched the reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field.
Selection criteria
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SNMD interventions with placebo (sham) stimulation, no treatment or usual care; or comparing SNMD interventions + another treatment versus that treatment alone. We included participants ≥ 18 years old with non‐cancer and non‐ischaemic pain of longer than three months duration. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were disability, analgesic medication use, health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) and health economic outcomes.
Data collection and analysis
Two review authors independently screened database searches to determine inclusion, extracted data and evaluated risk of bias for prespecified results using the Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Outcomes were evaluated at short‐ (≤ one month), medium‐ four to eight months) and long‐term (≥12 months). Where possible we conducted meta‐analyses. We used the GRADE system to assess the certainty of evidence.
Main results
We included 15 unique published studies that randomised 908 participants, and 20 unique ongoing studies. All studies evaluated SCS. We found no eligible published studies of DRGS and no studies comparing SCS with no treatment or usual care. We rated all results evaluated as being at high risk of bias overall. For all comparisons and outcomes where we found evidence, we graded the certainty of the evidence as low or very low, downgraded due to limitations of studies, imprecision and in some cases, inconsistency.
Active stimulation versus placebo
SCS versus placebo (sham)
Results were only available at short‐term follow‐up for this comparison.
Pain intensity
Six studies (N = 164) demonstrated a small effect in favour of SCS at short‐term follow‐up (0 to 100 scale, higher scores = worse pain, mean difference (MD) ‐8.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) ‐15.67 to ‐1.78, very low certainty). The point estimate falls below our predetermined threshold for a clinically important effect (≥10 points). No studies reported the proportion of participants experiencing 30% or 50% pain relief for this comparison.
Adverse events (AEs)
The quality and inconsistency of adverse event reporting in these studies precluded formal analysis.
Active stimulation + other intervention versus other intervention alone
SCS + other intervention versus other intervention alone (open‐label studies)
Pain intensity
Mean difference
Three studies (N = 303) demonstrated a potentially clinically important mean difference in favour of SCS of ‐37.41 at short term (95% CI ‐46.39 to ‐28.42, very low certainty), and medium‐term follow‐up (5 studies, 635 participants, MD ‐31.22 95% CI ‐47.34 to ‐15.10 low‐certainty), and no clear evidence for an effect of SCS at long‐term follow‐up (1 study, 44 participants, MD ‐7 (95% CI ‐24.76 to 10.76, very low‐certainty).
Proportion of participants reporting ≥50% pain relief
We found an effect in favour of SCS at short‐term (2 studies, N = 249, RR 15.90, 95% CI 6.70 to 37.74, I2 0% ; risk difference (RD) 0.65 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.74, very low certainty), medium term (5 studies, N = 597, RR 7.08, 95 %CI 3.40 to 14.71, I2 = 43%; RD 0.43, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.73, low‐certainty evidence), and long term (1 study, N = 87, RR 15.15, 95% CI 2.11 to 108.91 ; RD 0.35, 95% CI 0.2 to 0.49, very low certainty) follow‐up.
Adverse events (AEs)
Device related
No studies specifically reported device‐related adverse events at short‐term follow‐up. At medium‐term follow‐up, the incidence of lead failure/displacement (3 studies N = 330) ranged from 0.9 to 14% (RD 0.04, 95% CI ‐0.04 to 0.11, I2 64%, very low certainty). The incidence of infection (4 studies, N = 548) ranged from 3 to 7% (RD 0.04, 95%CI 0.01, 0.07, I2 0%, very low certainty). The incidence of reoperation/reimplantation (4 studies, N =5 48) ranged from 2% to 31% (RD 0.11, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.21, I2 86%, very low certainty). One study (N = 44) reported a 55% incidence of lead failure/displacement (RD 0.55, 95% CI 0.35, 0 to 75, very low certainty), and a 94% incidence of reoperation/reimplantation (RD 0.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.07, very low certainty) at five‐year follow‐up. No studies provided data on infection rates at long‐term follow‐up.
We found reports of some serious adverse events as a result of the intervention. These included autonomic neuropathy, prolonged hospitalisation, prolonged monoparesis, pulmonary oedema, wound infection, device extrusion and one death resulting from subdural haematoma.
Other
No studies reported the incidence of other adverse events at short‐term follow‐up. We found no clear evidence of a difference in otherAEs at medium‐term (2 studies, N = 278, RD ‐0.05, 95% CI ‐0.16 to 0.06, I2 0%) or long term (1 study, N = 100, RD ‐0.17, 95% CI ‐0.37 to 0.02) follow‐up.
Very limited evidence suggested that SCS increases healthcare costs. It was not clear whether SCS was cost‐effective.
Authors' conclusions
We found very low‐certainty evidence that SCS may not provide clinically important benefits on pain intensity compared to placebo stimulation. We found low‐ to very low‐certainty evidence that SNMD interventions may provide clinically important benefits for pain intensity when added to conventional medical management or physical therapy. SCS is associated with complications including infection, electrode lead failure/migration and a need for reoperation/re‐implantation. The level of certainty regarding the size of those risks is very low. SNMD may lead to serious adverse events, including death. We found no evidence to support or refute the use of DRGS for chronic pain.
Intrathecal delivery of histone deacetylase inhibitors ameliorates hypersensitivity in models of neuropathic pain. This effect may be mediated at the level of the spinal cord through inhibition of ...HDAC1 function.
Histone deacetylase inhibitors (HDACIs) interfere with the epigenetic process of histone acetylation and are known to have analgesic properties in models of chronic inflammatory pain. The aim of this study was to determine whether these compounds could also affect neuropathic pain. Different class I HDACIs were delivered intrathecally into rat spinal cord in models of traumatic nerve injury and antiretroviral drug–induced peripheral neuropathy (stavudine, d4T). Mechanical and thermal hypersensitivity was attenuated by 40% to 50% as a result of HDACI treatment, but only if started before any insult. The drugs globally increased histone acetylation in the spinal cord, but appeared to have no measurable effects in relevant dorsal root ganglia in this treatment paradigm, suggesting that any potential mechanism should be sought in the central nervous system. Microarray analysis of dorsal cord RNA revealed the signature of the specific compound used (MS-275) and suggested that its main effect was mediated through HDAC1. Taken together, these data support a role for histone acetylation in the emergence of neuropathic pain.
Chronic pain remains a prevalent and disabling problem for people living with HIV in the current antiretroviral treatment era. Psychosocial treatments may have promise for managing the impact of this ...pain. However, research is needed to identify psychosocial processes to target through such treatments. The current systematic review and meta-analysis examined the evidence for psychosocial factors associated with pain, disability, and quality of life in people living with HIV and persistent pain. Observational and experimental studies reporting on the association between one or more psychosocial factors and one or more pain-related variables in an adult sample of people living with HIV and pain were eligible. Two reviewers independently conducted eligibility screening, data extraction, and quality assessment. Forty-six studies were included in the review and 37 of these provided data for meta-analyses (12,493 participants). "Some" or "moderate" evidence supported an association between pain outcomes in people with HIV and the following psychosocial factors: depression, psychological distress, posttraumatic stress, drug abuse, sleep disturbance, reduced antiretroviral adherence, health care use, missed HIV clinic visits, unemployment, and protective psychological factors. Surprisingly, few studies examined protective psychological factors or social processes, such as stigma. There were few high-quality studies. These findings can inform future research and psychosocial treatment development in this area. Greater theoretical and empirical focus is needed to examine the role of protective factors and social processes on pain outcomes in this context. The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42016036329).
Postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) is a complication of acute herpes zoster, which is emerging as a preferred clinical trial model for chronic neuropathic pain. Although there are published meta-analyses ...of analgesic therapy in PHN, and neuropathic pain in general, the evidence base has been substantially enhanced by the recent publication of several major trials. Therefore, we have conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis for both efficacy and adverse events of analgesic therapy for PHN.
We systematically searched databases (MEDLINE 1966-2004, EMBASE 1988-2004, CINAHL 1982-2002, and PubMed 29 October 2004) for trials of PHN. We also searched references of retrieved studies and review articles for further trials. We included trials that examined adult patients with PHN of greater duration than 3 mo, that were blinded, randomised, and had at least one measure of pain outcome. Dichotomous pain outcome data were extracted for 50% decrease in baseline pain using a hierarchy of pain/pain-relief measurement tools. Where available, dichotomous data were also collected for adverse events. Calculated estimates of efficacy included relative benefit and number needed to treat. Of 62 studies identified, 35 were randomised controlled trials. Of these, 31 were placebo controlled and suitable for meta-analysis, from which it was possible to extract dichotomous efficacy outcome data from 25. This meta-analysis revealed that there is evidence to support the use of the following orally administered therapies: tricyclic antidepressants, "strong" opioids, gabapentin, tramadol, and pregabalin. Topical therapies associated with efficacy were lidocaine 5% patch and capsaicin. Finally, a single study of spinal intrathecal administration of lidocaine and methyl prednisolone demonstrated efficacy, although this has yet to be replicated. Data suggest that the following therapies are not associated with efficacy in PHN: certain NMDA receptor antagonists (e.g., oral memantine, oral dextromethorphan, intravenous ketamine), codeine, ibuprofen, lorazepam, certain 5HT1 receptor agonists, and acyclovir. Topical administration of benzydamine, diclofenac/diethyl ether, and vincristine (iontophoresis) are similarly not associated with efficacy, nor are intrathecal administration of lidocaine alone or epidural administration of lidocaine and methylprednisolone, intravenous therapy with lidocaine, subcutaneous injection of Cronassial, or acupuncture. However, many of the trials that demonstrated a lack of efficacy represented comparatively low numbers of patient episodes or were single-dose studies, so it may be appropriate to regard such interventions as "not yet adequately tested" rather than demonstrating "no evidence of efficacy." Topical aspirin/diethyl ether has not been adequately tested.
The evidence base supports the oral use of tricyclic antidepressants, certain opioids, and gabapentinoids in PHN. Topical therapy with lidocaine patches and capsaicin is similarly supported. Intrathecal administration of methylprednisolone appears to be associated with high efficacy, but its safety requires further evaluation.
The Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group of the International Association for the Study of Pain recently sponsored the development of evidence-based guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of ...neuropathic pain. Tricyclic antidepressants, dual reuptake inhibitors of serotonin and norepinephrine, calcium channel α2 -δ ligands (ie, gabapentin and pregabalin), and topical lidocaine were recommended as first-line treatment options on the basis of the results of randomized clinical trials. Opioid analgesics and tramadol were recommended as second-line treatments that can be considered for first-line use in certain clinical circumstances. Results of several recent clinical trials have become available since the development of these guidelines. These studies have examined botulinum toxin, high-concentration capsaicin patch, lacosamide, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, and combination therapies in various neuropathic pain conditions. The increasing number of negative clinical trials of pharmacological treatments for neuropathic pain and ambiguities in the interpretation of these negative trials must also be considered in developing treatment guidelines. The objectives of the current article are to review the Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group guidelines for the pharmacological management of neuropathic pain and to provide a brief overview of these recent studies.
Cannabinoids, cannabis, and cannabis-based medicines (CBM) are increasingly used to manage pain, with limited understanding of their efficacy and safety. We assessed methodological quality, scope, ...and results of systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials of these treatments. Several search strategies sought self-declared systematic reviews. Methodological quality was assessed using both AMSTAR-2 and techniques important for bias reduction in pain studies. Of the 106 articles read, 57 were self-declared systematic reviews, most published since 2010. They included any type of cannabinoid, cannabis, or CBM, at any dose, however administered, in a broad range of pain conditions. No review examined the effects of a particular cannabinoid, at a particular dose, using a particular route of administration, for a particular pain condition, reporting a particular analgesic outcome. Confidence in the results in the systematic reviews using AMSTAR-2 definitions was critically low (41), low (8), moderate (6), or high (2). Few used criteria important for bias reduction in pain. Cochrane reviews typically provided higher confidence; all industry-conflicted reviews provided critically low confidence. Meta-analyses typically pooled widely disparate studies, and, where assessable, were subject to potential publication bias. Systematic reviews with positive or negative recommendation for use of cannabinoids, cannabis, or CBM in pain typically rated critically low or low (24/25 96% positive; 10/12 83% negative). Current reviews are mostly lacking in quality and cannot provide a basis for decision-making. A new high-quality systematic review of randomised controlled trials is needed to critically assess the clinical evidence for cannabinoids, cannabis, or CBM in pain.
IMPORTANCE: Objective quantification of small fiber neuropathy in patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)–associated sensory neuropathy (HIV-SN) is difficult but needed for diagnosis and ...monitoring. In vivo corneal confocal microscopy (IVCCM) can quantify small fiber damage. OBJECTIVE: To establish whether IVCCM can identify an abnormality in corneal nerve fibers and Langerhans cells in patients with and without HIV-SN. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This prospective, cross-sectional cohort study was conducted between July 24, 2015, and September 17, 2015. Twenty patients who were HIV positive were recruited from adult outpatient clinics at Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust in England. These patients underwent IVCCM at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust in London, England, and the IVCCM images were analyzed at Weill Cornell Medicine–Qatar in Ar-Rayyan, Qatar. Patients were given a structured clinical examination and completed validated symptom questionnaires and the Clinical HIV-Associated Neuropathy Tool. Results from patients with HIV were compared with the results of the age- and sex-matched healthy control participants (n = 20). All participants were classified into 3 groups: controls, patients with HIV but without SN, and patients with HIV-SN. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Comparison of corneal nerve fiber density, corneal nerve branch density, corneal nerve fiber length, corneal nerve fiber tortuosity, and corneal Langerhans cell density between healthy controls and patients with HIV with and without SN. RESULTS: All 40 participants were male, and most (≥70%) self-identified as white. Of the 20 patients with HIV, 14 (70%) had HIV-SN. This group was older (mean SD age, 57.7 7.75 years) than the group without HIV-SN (mean SD age, 42.3 7.26 years) and the controls (mean SD age, 53.8 10.5 years). Corneal nerve fiber density was reduced in patients with HIV compared with the controls (26.7/mm2 vs 38.6/mm2; median difference, −10.37; 95.09% CI, −14.27 to −6.25; P < .001) and in patients with HIV-SN compared with those without (25.8/mm2 vs 30.7/mm2; median difference, −4.53; 95.92% CI, −8.85 to −0.26; P = .03). Corneal nerve branch density and corneal nerve fiber length were reduced in patients with HIV, but no differences were identified between those with neuropathy and without neuropathy (corneal nerve branch density: 95.83/mm2 for the controls vs 72.37/mm2 for patients with HIV; median difference, −24.53; 95.32% CI, −50.62 to −3.13; P = .01; and corneal nerve fiber length: 28.4 mm/mm2 for the controls vs 21.9 mm/mm2 for patients with HIV; median difference, −5.24; 95.09% CI, −8.83 to −1.38; P = .001). Tortuosity coefficient was increased in patients with HIV compared with controls (16.44 vs 13.95; median difference, 2.34; 95.09% CI, 0.31 to 4.65; P = .03) and in those with HIV-SN compared with those without (17.84 vs 14.18; median difference, 4.32; 95.92% CI, 0.68-9.23; P = .01). No differences were identified in corneal Langerhans cell density (19.84 cells/mm2 for the controls vs 41.43 cells/mm2 for patients with HIV; median difference, 9.38; 95% CI, −12.51 to 26.34; P = .53). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In vivo corneal confocal microscopy could be used in the assessment of HIV-SN, but larger studies are required to confirm this finding.
PDF
