Clinical use of pregabalin in the management of central neuropathic pain

Central neuropathic pain (central pain) is treated with antidepressants, various anticonvulsants, opioids, and cannabinoids, but in many cases treatment is insufficient and associated with a range of side-effects. This review addresses a new treatment for neuropathic pain, the anticonvulsant pregabalin. We review the pharmacology, mode of action, pharmacokinetics, and safety of pregabalin as well as two randomized efficacy studies in central pain and a brief overview of efficacy in peripheral neuropathic pain. Pregabalin appears to have efficacy in treating central pain comparable to that in peripheral neuropathic pain as well as efficacy of other recommended drugs for central pain. Pregabalin also improves disturbed sleep and anxiety. Pregabalin is well tolerated; the most common side-effects are somnolence, dizziness, ataxia, and weight gain. Pregabalin is suitable for patients on multiple drugs although there may be additive CNS-related side-effects. Thus, pregabalin has a primary role in central pain patients

Fatty acid suppression of glial activation prevents central neuropathic pain after spinal cord injury

Supplemental digital content associated with this article can be found online at http://links.lww.com/PAIN/A853Peer reviewedPostprin

Trigeminal neuralgia: new classification and diagnostic grading for practice and research

Trigeminal neuralgia (TN) is an exemplary condition of neuropathic facial pain. However, formally classifying TN as neuropathic pain based on the grading system of the International Association for the Study of Pain is complicated by the requirement of objective signs confirming an underlying lesion or disease of the somatosensory system. The latest version of the International Classification of Headache Disorders created similar difficulties by abandoning the term symptomatic TN for manifestations caused by major neurologic disease, such as tumors or multiple sclerosis. These diagnostic challenges hinder the triage of TN patients for therapy and clinical trials, and hamper the design of treatment guidelines. In response to these shortcomings, we have developed a classification of TN that aligns with the nosology of other neurologic disorders and neuropathic pain. We propose 3 diagnostic categories. Classical TN requires demonstration of morphologic changes in the trigeminal nerve root from vascular compression. Secondary TN is due to an identifiable underlying neurologic disease. TN of unknown etiology is labeled idiopathic. Diagnostic certainty is graded possible when pain paroxysms occur in the distribution of the trigeminal nerve branches. Triggered paroxysms permit the designation of clinically established TN and probable neuropathic pain. Imaging and neurophysiologic tests that establish the etiology of classical or secondary TN determine definite neuropathic pain

Pain Following Stroke: A Population-Based Follow-Up Study

Background and Purpose: Chronic pain is increasingly recognized as a consequence of stroke. This study aimed to describe the prevalence and pain types of new onset chronic pain (‘‘novel pain’’) in patients with stroke compared with a randomly selected reference group from the general population and to identify factors associated with pain development in stroke patients. Methods: In a population-based follow-up design, development of chronic pain after stroke was assessed by a questionnaire sent to consecutive stroke patients, registered in a Danish national stroke database, two years after their stroke. A randomly selected sex- and age-matched reference group from the same catchment area received a similar questionnaire about development of new types of chronic pain in the same time period. A total of 608 stroke patients and 519 reference subjects were included in the study. Results: Development of novel pain was reported by 39.0 % of stroke patients and 28.9 % of reference subjects (OR 1.57, CI 1.21-2.04), and was associated with low age and depression in a multivariate model. Daily intake of pain medication for novel pain was reported by 15.3 % and 9.4 % of the stroke and reference population, respectively. Novel headache, shoulder pain, pain from increased muscle stiffness, and other types of novel pain were more common in stroke patients, whereas joint pain was equally common in the two groups. Conclusions: Development of chronic pain is more common in stroke patients compared with sex- and age-matched reference subjects. Evaluation of post-stroke pain should be part of stroke follow-up

Cannabinoids, cannabis, and cannabis-based medicines for pain management: an overview of systematic reviews

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

The Genetics of Neuropathic Pain from Model Organisms to Clinical Application.

Neuropathic pain (NeuP) arises due to injury of the somatosensory nervous system and is both common and disabling, rendering an urgent need for non-addictive, effective new therapies. Given the high evolutionary conservation of pain, investigative approaches from Drosophila mutagenesis to human Mendelian genetics have aided our understanding of the maladaptive plasticity underlying NeuP. Successes include the identification of ion channel variants causing hyper-excitability and the importance of neuro-immune signaling. Recent developments encompass improved sensory phenotyping in animal models and patients, brain imaging, and electrophysiology-based pain biomarkers, the collection of large well-phenotyped population cohorts, neurons derived from patient stem cells, and high-precision CRISPR generated genetic editing. We will discuss how to harness these resources to understand the pathophysiological drivers of NeuP, define its relationship with comorbidities such as anxiety, depression, and sleep disorders, and explore how to apply these findings to the prediction, diagnosis, and treatment of NeuP in the clinic

Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of antidepressants for pain in adults : overview of systematic reviews

Objective To provide a comprehensive overview of the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of antidepressants for pain according to condition. Design Overview of systematic reviews. Data sources PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to 20 June 2022. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Systematic reviews comparing any antidepressant with placebo for any pain condition in adults. Data extraction and synthesis Two reviewers independently extracted data. The main outcome measure was pain; for headache disorders it was frequency of headaches. Continuous pain outcomes were converted into a scale of 0 (no pain) to 100 (worst pain) and were presented as mean differences (95% confidence intervals). Dichotomous outcomes were presented as risk ratios (95% confidence intervals). Data were extracted from the time point closest to the end of treatment. When end of treatment was too variable across trials in a review, data were extracted from the outcome or time point with the largest number of trials and participants. Secondary outcomes were safety and tolerability (withdrawals because of adverse events). Findings were classified from each comparison as efficacious, not efficacious, or inconclusive. Certainty of evidence was assessed with the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation framework. Results 26 reviews (156 unique trials and >25 000 participants) were included. These reviews reported on the efficacy of eight antidepressant classes covering 22 pain conditions (42 distinct comparisons). No review provided high certainty evidence on the efficacy of antidepressants for pain for any condition. 11 comparisons (nine conditions) were found where antidepressants were efficacious, four with moderate certainty evidence: serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) for back pain (mean difference −5.3, 95% confidence interval −7.3 to −3.3), postoperative pain (−7.3, −12.9 to −1.7), neuropathic pain (−6.8, −8.7 to −4.8), and fibromyalgia (risk ratio 1.4, 95% confidence interval 1.3 to 1.6). For the other 31 comparisons, antidepressants were either not efficacious (five comparisons) or the evidence was inconclusive (26 comparisons). Conclusions Evidence of efficacy of antidepressants was found in 11 of the 42 comparisons included in this overview of systematic reviews—seven of the 11 comparisons investigated the efficacy of SNRIs. For the other 31 comparisons, antidepressants were either inefficacious or evidence on efficacy was inconclusive. The findings suggest that a more nuanced approach is needed when prescribing antidepressants for pain conditions. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42022311073