Project description:BACKGROUND:Milnacipran is a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) that is sometimes used to treat chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia. OBJECTIVES:To evaluate the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of milnacipran in the management of chronic neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia. SEARCH METHODS:We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE to 4th of January 2012, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA:We included randomised, double-blind studies of eight weeks duration or longer, comparing milnacipran with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:We extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and two study authors examined issues of study quality independently. MAIN RESULTS:Five studies (4138 participants) were included, all of which were placebo-controlled, involved participants with fibromyalgia, and used titration to a target dose of 100 mg or 200 mg milnacipran. There were no other active comparators or studies in other neuropathic pain conditions. Study quality was generally good, although the imputation method used in analyses of the primary outcomes could overestimate treatment effect.Both doses of milnacipran provided moderate levels of pain relief to about 40% of those treated, compared to 30% with placebo, giving a number needed to treat of 8 to 10. Adverse events were common in both milnacipran (87%) and placebo (78%) groups, but serious adverse events (< 2%) did not differ between groups. Nausea and constipation were the most common events showing the greatest difference between groups (number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome of 7 and 13 respectively, compared with placebo).Withdrawals for any reason were more common with milnacipran than placebo, and more common with 200 mg than 100 mg (NNH of 23 and 8.8 respectively, compared with placebo). This was largely driven by adverse event withdrawals, where the NNH compared with placebo was 14 for 100 mg, and 7.0 for 200 mg). Withdrawals due to lack of efficacy were more common with milnacipran than placebo but did not differ between doses (number needed to treat to prevent an additional unwanted outcome of 45 and 41 respectively). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:The evidence available indicates that milnacipran 100 mg or 200 mg is effective for a minority in the treatment of pain due to fibromyalgia, providing moderate levels of pain relief (at least 30%) to about 40% of participants, compared with about 30% with placebo. There were insufficient data to assess substantial levels of pain relief (at least 50%), and the use of last observation carried forward imputation may overestimate drug efficacy. Milnacipran is associated with increased adverse events and adverse event withdrawals, which were significantly greater for the higher dose. There were no data for the use of milnacipran for other chronic neuropathic pain conditions.

Project description:BackgroundAntiepileptic drugs have been used in pain management since the 1960s; some seem to be especially useful for neuropathic pain. Lacosamide is an antiepileptic drug that has recently been investigated for neuropathic pain relief, although it failed to get approval for painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy from either the Food and Drug Administration or the European Medicines Agency.ObjectivesTo evaluate the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of lacosamide in the management of chronic neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register (2011, Issue 4), CENTRAL (2011, Issue 3), MEDLINE (January 2000 to August 2011) and EMBASE (2000 to August 2011) without language restriction, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews.Selection criteriaWe included randomised, double-blind studies of eight weeks duration or longer, comparing lacosamide with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently extracted data for efficacy and adverse events and examined issues of study quality, including risk of bias assessments. Where possible, we calculated numbers needed to treat to benefit from dichotomous data for effectiveness, adverse events and study withdrawals.Main resultsWe included six studies; five (1863 participants) in painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) and one (159 participants) in fibromyalgia. All were placebo-controlled and titrated to a target dose of 200 mg, 400 mg or 600 mg lacosamide daily, given as a divided dose. Study reporting quality was generally good, although the imputation method of last observation carried forward used in analyses of the primary outcomes is known to known to impart major bias where, as here, adverse event withdrawal rates were high. This, together with small numbers of patients and events for most outcomes at most doses meant that most results were of low quality, with moderate quality evidence available for some efficacy outcomes for 400 mg lacosamide.There were too few data for analysis of the 200 mg dose for painful diabetic neuropathy or any dose for fibromyalgia.In painful diabetic neuropathy, lacosamide 400 mg provided statistically increased rates of achievement of "moderate" and "substantial" benefit (at least 30% and at least 50% reduction from baseline in patient-reported pain respectively) and the patient global impression of change outcome of "much or very much improved". In each case the extra proportion benefiting above placebo was about 10%, yielding numbers needed to treat to benefit compared with placebo of 10 to 12. For lacosamide 600 mg there was no consistent benefit over placebo.There was no significant difference between any dose of lacosamide and placebo for participants experiencing any adverse event or a serious adverse event, but adverse event withdrawals showed a significant dose response. The number needed to treat to harm for adverse event withdrawal was 11 for lacosamide 400 mg and 4 for the 600 mg dose.Authors' conclusionsLacosamide has limited efficacy in the treatment of peripheral diabetic neuropathy. Higher doses did not give consistently better efficacy, but were associated with significantly more adverse event withdrawals. Where adverse event withdrawals are high with active treatment compared with placebo and when last observation carried forward imputation is used, as in some of these studies, significant overestimation of treatment efficacy can result. It is likely, therefore, that lacosamide is without any useful benefit in treating neuropathic pain; any positive interpretation of the evidence should be made with caution if at all.

Project description:BackgroundValproic acid and its sodium salt (sodium valproate) are antiepileptic drugs that are sometimes used to treat chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia, although they are not licensed for this use.ObjectivesTo evaluate the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of valproic acid and sodium valproate in the management of chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia.Search strategyWe identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of valproic acid and sodium valproate in acute, and chronic pain by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane CENTRAL to June 2011, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews.Selection criteriaRCTs that were double blind and of eight-weeks duration or longer, reporting on analgesic effects and adverse events with valproic acid and sodium valproate in the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently extracted results and scored for quality. We extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality.Main resultsWe included three studies, two in diabetic neuropathy (42 participants treated with valproate, 42 with placebo), and one in post-herpetic neuralgia (23 treated with divalproex sodium, 22 with placebo). Study duration was eight or 12 weeks. No studies were found in fibromyalgia.Only one study reported one of our primary outcomes (≥ 50% pain relief), while all three reported group means for pain reduction from baseline to endpoint. In all three studies; efficacy results were given only for participants who completed the study. One study in diabetic neuropathy and the study in post-herpetic neuralgia reported significant differences between active and placebo groups, but there were insufficient data for reliable pooled analysis.More adverse events were reported with active treatment than placebo, and included nausea, drowsiness and abnormal liver function tests. One participant taking sodium valproate withdrew due to serious derangement of liver enzymes.Authors' conclusionsThese three studies no more than hint that sodium valproate may reduce pain in diabetic neuropathy, and divalproex sodium in post-herpetic neuralgia, but the use of 'completer' analysis may overestimate efficacy, and there were too few data for pooled analysis of efficacy or harm, or to have confidence in the results of the individual studies. There is insufficient evidence to support the use of valproic acid or sodium valproate as a first-line treatment for neuropathic pain. There is more robust evidence of greater efficacy for a small number of other drugs.

Project description:BackgroundNeuropathic pain is thought to arise from damage to the somatosensory nervous system. Its prevalence is increasing in line with many chronic disorders such as diabetes. All treatments have limited effectiveness. Given the evidence regarding psychological treatment for distress and disability in people with various chronic pain conditions, we were interested to investigate whether psychological treatments have any effects for those with chronic neuropathic pain.ObjectivesTo assess the effects of psychological treatments on pain experience, disability, mood, and health-care use in adults with chronic neuropathic pain.Search methodsWe searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in any language in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO, from database inception to March 2015.Selection criteriaFull publications of RCTs on psychological interventions for neuropathic pain. Trials had to have lasted at least three months, had at least 20 participants in each arm at the end of treatment, and compared a psychological intervention with any active or inactive intervention.Data collection and analysisWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.Main resultsTwo small studies (enrolling a total of 105 participants) met the inclusion criteria. One was a standard cognitive behavioural treatment (CBT) programme for 61 people with pain from spinal cord injury, followed up for three months, and compared with a waiting list. The other was weekly group psychotherapy for 44 people with burning mouth syndrome, compared with a daily placebo tablet. The overall risk of bias was high in both trials.The CBT study assessed participants for pain, disability, mood, and quality of life, with improvement in treatment and control groups. However, there was no more improvement in the treatment group than in the control for any outcome, either post-treatment or at follow-up. The group psychotherapy study only assessed pain, classifying participants by pain severity. There is a lack of evidence on the efficacy and safety of psychological interventions for people with neuropathic pain.Authors' conclusionsThere is insufficient evidence of the efficacy and safety of psychological interventions for chronic neuropathic pain. The two available studies show no benefit of treatment over either waiting list or placebo control groups.

Dataset Information

Gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia in adults.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure