Cancer treatment-related neuropathic pain:proof of concept study with menthol—a TRPM8 agonist

PURPOSE: Effective treatment of neuropathic pain without unacceptable side effects is challenging. Cancer sufferers increasingly live with long-term treatment-related neuropathic pain, resulting from chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) or surgical scars. This proof-of-concept study aimed to determine whether preclinical evidence for TRPM8 ion channels in sensory neurons as a novel analgesic target could be translated to clinical benefit in patients with neuropathic pain, using the TRPM8 activator menthol. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with problematic treatment-related neuropathic pain underwent a baseline assessment using validated questionnaires, psychophysical testing, and objective functional measures. The painful area was treated with topical 1 % menthol cream twice daily. Assessments were repeated at 4–6 weeks. The primary outcome was the change in Brief Pain Inventory total scores at 4–6 weeks. Secondary outcomes included changes in function, mood and skin sensation. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients (female/male, 32/19) were recruited with a median age of 61 (ranging from 20 to 89). The commonest aetiology was CIPN (35/51), followed by scar pain (10/51). Thirty-eight were evaluable on the primary outcome. Eighty-two per cent (31/38) had an improvement in total Brief Pain Inventory scores (median, 47 (interquartile range, 30 to 64) to 34 (6 to 59), P < 0.001). Improvements in mood (P = 0.0004), catastrophising (P = 0.001), walking ability (P = 0.008) and sensation (P < 0.01) were also observed. CONCLUSION: This proof-of-concept study indicates that topical menthol has potential as a novel analgesic therapy for cancer treatment-related neuropathic pain. Improvements in patient-rated measures are supported by changes in objective measures of physical function and sensation. Further systematic evaluation of efficacy is required

Is Meta-Analysis for Utility Values Appropriate Given the Potential Impact Different Elicitation Methods Have on Values?

A growing number of published articles report estimates from meta-analysis or meta-regression on health state utility values (HSUVs), with a view to providing input into decision-analytic models. Pooling HSUVs is problematic because of the fact that different valuation methods and different preference-based measures (PBMs) can generate different values on exactly the same clinical health state. Existing meta-analyses of HSUVs are characterised by high levels of heterogeneity, and meta-regressions have identified significant (and substantial) impacts arising from the elicitation method used. The use of meta-regression with few utility values and inclusion criteria that extend beyond the required utility value has not helped. There is the potential to explore greater use of mapping between different PBMs and valuation methods prior to data synthesis, which could support greater use of pooling values. Researchers wishing to populate decision-analytic models have a responsibility to incorporate all high-quality evidence available. In relation to HSUVs, greater understanding of the differences between different methods and greater consistency of methodology is required before this can be achieved