Search

Abstract: Combat trauma can lead to widespread tissue damage and limb loss. This may result in chronic neuropathic and post amputation pain, including phantom limb pain (PLP) and residual limb pain (RLP). The military population is distinct with respect to demographic, injury, and social characteristics compared with other amputation and trauma cohorts. We undertook a systematic review of studies of military personnel, with a history of combat injury, that reported a prevalence of any type of postamputation pain or chronic neuropathic pain, identified from Embase and MEDLINE databases.Using the inverse variance method with a random-effects model, we undertook a meta-analysis to determine an overall prevalence and performed exploratory analyses to identify the effect of the type of pain, conflict, and time since injury on prevalence. Pain definitions and types of pain measurement tools used in studies were recorded. Thirty-one studies (14,738 participants) were included. The pooled prevalence of PLP, RLP, and chronic neuropathic pain were 57% (95% CI: 46-68), 61% (95% CI: 50-71), and 26% (95% CI: 10-54), respectively. Between-study heterogeneity was high (I 2 : 94%-98%). Characterisation of duration, frequency, and impact of pain was limited. Factors reported by included studies as being associated with PLP included the presence of RLP and psychological comorbidity. The prevalence of postamputation pain and chronic neuropathic pain after combat trauma is high. We highlight inconsistency of case definitions and terminology for pain and the need for consensus in future research of traumatic injury., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the International Association for the Study of Pain.)

Abstract: Paradoxical heat sensation (PHS) is the perception of warmth when the skin is cooled. Paradoxical heat sensation rarely occurs in healthy individuals but more frequently in patients suffering from lesions or disease of the peripheral or central nervous system. To further understand mechanisms and epidemiology of PHS, we evaluated the occurrence of PHS in relation to disease aetiology, pain levels, quantitative sensory testing parameters, and Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI) items in patients with nervous system lesions. Data of 1090 patients, including NPSI scores from 404 patients, were included in the analysis. We tested 11 quantitative sensory testing parameters for thermal and mechanical detection and pain thresholds, and 10 NPSI items in a multivariate generalised linear model with PHS, aetiology, and pain (yes or no) as fixed effects. In total, 30% of the neuropathic patients reported PHS in contrast to 2% of healthy individuals. The frequency of PHS was not linked to the presence or intensity of pain. Paradoxical heat sensation was more frequent in patients living with polyneuropathy compared with central or unilateral peripheral nerve lesions. Patients who reported PHS demonstrated significantly lower sensitivity to thermal perception, with lower sensitivity to normally painful heat and cold stimuli. Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory scores were lower for burning and electric shock-like pain quality for patients with PHS. Our findings suggest that PHS is associated with loss of small thermosensory fibre function normally involved in cold and warm perception. Clinically, presence of PHS could help screening for loss of small fibre function as it is straightforward to measure or self-reported by patients., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the International Association for the Study of Pain.)

Translating promising preclinical pain relief data for novel molecules from drug discovery to positive clinical trial outcomes is challenging. The angiotensin II type 2 (AT 2 ) receptor is a clinically-validated target based upon positive proof-of-concept clinical trial data in patients with post-herpetic neuralgia. This trial was conducted because AT 2 receptor antagonists evoked pain relief in rodent models of neuropathic pain. EMA401 was selected as the drug candidate based upon its suitable preclinical toxicity and safety profile and good pharmacokinetics. Herein, we provide an overview of the discovery, preclinical and clinical development of EMA401, for the alleviation of peripheral neuropathic pain., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: MTS is named as inventor on two granted University of Queensland (UQ) patents (Smith MT, Wyse B. Methods of treatment or prophylaxis PCT/AU2005/001975. Published Jun 29, 2006. Smith MT. Methods of treatment or prophylaxis PCT/AU2007/00339. Published Sep 27, 2007). The AT(2) receptor antagonist technology was commercialized by the UQ spin-out company, Spinifex Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd that was formed in 2005. In 2015, Spinifex was acquired by Novartis. In 2019, clinical development was terminated due to unexpected hepatotoxicity in a long-term (39-weeks) monkey toxicity study. MTS is undertaking contract research in collaboration with Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG, Argenica Pharmaceuticals and Cassowary Pharmaceuticals (on which MTS is a co-founder). AJS is named as an inventor on University of Southern California patent application (‘AT2 antagonists for non-addictive pain relief,’ PCT/IB2023/057041) and declares consultancy income from Eli Lilly & Co. for advisory work in relation to AT(2) receptor antagonists. ASCR declares funding to his laboratory at Imperial College London from Spinifex to conduct pre-clinical evaluation of EMA401. He held share options in Spinifex which resulted in personal gain on the acquisition of Spinifex by Novartis. Consultancy income via Imperial Consultants for advisory work in relation to the analgesic effects of AT(2) receptor antagonists from Spinifex, Novartis and Confo. He is a member of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), Commission on Human Medicines - Neurology, Pain & Psychiatry Expert Advisory Group., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background and Purpose: In these guidelines, we aimed to develop evidence-based recommendations for the use of screening questionnaires and diagnostic tests in patients with neuropathic pain (NeP)., Methods: We systematically reviewed studies providing information on the sensitivity and specificity of screening questionnaires, and quantitative sensory testing, neurophysiology, skin biopsy, and corneal confocal microscopy. We also analysed how functional neuroimaging, peripheral nerve blocks, and genetic testing might provide useful information in diagnosing NeP., Results: Of the screening questionnaires, Douleur Neuropathique en 4 Questions (DN4), I-DN4 (self-administered DN4), and Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (LANSS) received a strong recommendation, and S-LANSS (self-administered LANSS) and PainDETECT weak recommendations for their use in the diagnostic pathway for patients with possible NeP. We devised a strong recommendation for the use of skin biopsy and a weak recommendation for quantitative sensory testing and nociceptive evoked potentials in the NeP diagnosis. Trigeminal reflex testing received a strong recommendation in diagnosing secondary trigeminal neuralgia. Although many studies support the usefulness of corneal confocal microscopy in diagnosing peripheral neuropathy, no study specifically investigated the diagnostic accuracy of this technique in patients with NeP. Functional neuroimaging and peripheral nerve blocks are helpful in disclosing pathophysiology and/or predicting outcomes, but current literature does not support their use for diagnosing NeP. Genetic testing may be considered at specialist centres, in selected cases., Conclusions: These recommendations provide evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for NeP diagnosis. Due to the poor-to-moderate quality of evidence identified by this review, future large-scale, well-designed, multicentre studies assessing the accuracy of diagnostic tests for NeP are needed., (© 2023 The Authors. European Journal of Neurology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Academy of Neurology.)

Painful HIV-associated neuropathy (HIV-SN) is a prevalent co-morbidity of HIV infection. Sensory phenotyping, using quantitative sensory testing (QST) could allow for improved stratification to guide personalized treatment. However, previous methods of QST interpretation have demonstrated limited association with self-reported pain measures. This study sought to identify differences in self-reported pain measures between composite QST-derived sensory phenotypes, and to examine any differences in participants reporting multi-site, multi-etiology chronic pain. In this cross-sectional observational study of participants with HIV (n = 133), individuals were allocated to neuropathy and neuropathic pain groups through clinical assessment and nerve conduction testing. They completed symptom-based questionnaires and underwent standardized QST. Participants were assigned, by pre-determined algorithm, to a QST-derived sensory phenotype. Symptoms were compared between sensory phenotypes. Symptom characteristics and Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory scores differed between QST-derived sensory phenotypes: 'sensory loss' was associated with more paroxysmal and paraesthetic symptoms compared to 'thermal hyperalgesia' and 'healthy' phenotypes (P = .023-0.001). Those with painful HIV-SN and additional chronic pain diagnoses were more frequently allocated to the 'mechanical hyperalgesia' phenotype compared to those with painful HIV-SN alone (P = .006). This study describes heterogeneous sensory phenotypes in people living with HIV. Differences in self-reported pain outcomes between sensory phenotypes has the potential to guide future stratified trials and eventually more targeted therapy. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents quantitative sensory testing derived phenotypes, thought to reflect differing pathophysiological pain mechanisms and relates them to self-reported pain measures in people with HIV infection. This could help clinicians stratify patients to individualize analgesic interventions more effectively., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP) is common and often distressing. Most guidelines recommend amitriptyline, duloxetine, pregabalin, or gabapentin as initial analgesic treatment for DPNP, but there is little comparative evidence on which one is best or whether they should be combined. We aimed to assess the efficacy and tolerability of different combinations of first-line drugs for treatment of DPNP., Methods: OPTION-DM was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, crossover trial in patients with DPNP with mean daily pain numerical rating scale (NRS) of 4 or higher (scale is 0-10) from 13 UK centres. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1:1), with a predetermined randomisation schedule stratified by site using permuted blocks of size six or 12, to receive one of six ordered sequences of the three treatment pathways: amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin (A-P), pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline (P-A), and duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin (D-P), each pathway lasting 16 weeks. Monotherapy was given for 6 weeks and was supplemented with the combination medication if there was suboptimal pain relief (NRS >3), reflecting current clinical practice. Both treatments were titrated towards maximum tolerated dose (75 mg per day for amitriptyline, 120 mg per day for duloxetine, and 600 mg per day for pregabalin). The primary outcome was the difference in 7-day average daily pain during the final week of each pathway. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN17545443., Findings: Between Nov 14, 2017, and July 29, 2019, 252 patients were screened, 140 patients were randomly assigned, and 130 started a treatment pathway (with 84 completing at least two pathways) and were analysed for the primary outcome. The 7-day average NRS scores at week 16 decreased from a mean 6·6 (SD 1·5) at baseline to 3·3 (1·8) at week 16 in all three pathways. The mean difference was -0·1 (98·3% CI -0·5 to 0·3) for D-P versus A-P, -0·1 (-0·5 to 0·3) for P-A versus A-P, and 0·0 (-0·4 to 0·4) for P-A versus D-P, and thus not significant. Mean NRS reduction in patients on combination therapy was greater than in those who remained on monotherapy (1·0 [SD 1·3] vs 0·2 [1·5]). Adverse events were predictable for the monotherapies: we observed a significant increase in dizziness in the P-A pathway, nausea in the D-P pathway, and dry mouth in the A-P pathway., Interpretation: To our knowledge, this was the largest and longest ever, head-to-head, crossover neuropathic pain trial. We showed that all three treatment pathways and monotherapies had similar analgesic efficacy. Combination treatment was well tolerated and led to improved pain relief in patients with suboptimal pain control with a monotherapy., Funding: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests ST reports honoraria for educational meetings from Pfizer, Viatris, Wörwag Pharma, Novo Nordisk, Merck & Co, Eva Pharma, Hikma Pharmaceuticals, Abbott Laboratories, AstraZeneca, Nevro, Procter & Gamble Health, Astellas Pharma, and Berlin-Chemi; consulting fees from Bayer, NeuroPn Therapeutics, Wörwag Pharma, Angelini, Grünenthal, TRIGOcare International, Nevro Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, and Confo Therapeutics; and a research grant from Procter and Gamble Health paid to Sheffield Teaching Hospitals. UA reports honoraria for educational meetings from Eli Lilly, Napp Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, and Boehringer Ingelheim. EBJ reports honoraria and research support from Novo Nordisk and Sanofi. SHA reports honoraria for educational meetings from Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, and Sanofi. PV reports honoraria from Merck and Sanofi. MJ reports honoraria for advisory boards and speaker fees from Grünenthal (2015 to present) and being a co-chairperson, since 2014, of the Chronic Pain Policy Coalition and a council (2012 to present) and ordinary member of the British Pain Society. DB reports grants and contracts from Novartis, Grunenthal, Bayer, and Air Liquide; and consulting fees from Bayer and Air Liquide. DLB has acted as a consultant on behalf of Oxford University Innovation for AditumBio, Amgen, Bristows, Latigo Biotherapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, OliPass, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Theranexus, over the past 2 years; has received research funding from Eli Lilly and AstraZeneca; has received an industrial partnership grant from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council and AstraZeneca; and reports grants and contracts for several studies from the UK Research and Innovation, Medical Research Council (MRC), Action Medical Research for Children, MRC Research Grant, Wellcome Trust Senior Clinical Scientist Fellowship, Novo Nordisk Foundation, EU Horizon 2020, MRC Clinical Research Training Fellowship, and Wellcome Trust Strategic Award. DS reports membership of the advisory boards of Impeto Medical, PelliTec, and FeetMe. CC is a member of the NIHR Clinical Trial Unit (CTU) Support Funding Committee, NIHR CTU Standing Advisory Committee, NIHR Programme Grants for Applied Research Subcommittee, and Trial Steering Committees for other NIHR-funded trials. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Abstract: Neuropathic pain highly affects quality of life, well-being, and function. It has recently been shown based on cluster analysis studies that most patients with neuropathic pain may be categorized into 1 of 3 sensory phenotypes: sensory loss, mechanical hyperalgesia, and thermal hyperalgesia. If these phenotypes reflect underlying pathophysiological mechanisms, they may be more relevant for patient management than underlying neurological diagnosis or pain intensity. The aim of this study was thus to examine the impact of these sensory phenotypes on mental health, functionality, and quality of life. Data of 433 patients from the IMI/EuroPain network database were analyzed, and results of HADS-D/A, Pain Catastrophizing Scale, Euro Quality of Life 5D/-VAS, Brief Pain Inventory, and Graded Chronic Pain Scale between the sensory phenotypes were compared using multiple regression analysis. There was no difference in chronic pain grade, pain intensity, depression, or anxiety scores between phenotypes. Pain interference (Brief Pain Inventory) was higher (P = 0.002); self-reported health state lower (Euro Quality of Life 5D VAS, P = 0.02); and problems regarding mobility (P = 0.008), usual activities (P = 0.004), and self-care (P = 0.039) more prominent (EQ5-D) in the sensory loss compared with the thermal hyperalgesia phenotype. Patients with sensory loss also showed higher pain catastrophizing scores (P = 0.006 and 0.022, respectively) compared with the 2 other groups. Sensory phenotype is associated with the impact of neuropathic pain conditions on well-being, daily functionality, and quality of life but is less associated with pain intensity. These results suggest that the somatosensory phenotype should be considered for personalized pain management., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the International Association for the Study of Pain.)

Abstract: One in 5 patients with diabetes suffers from chronic pain with neuropathic characteristics, but the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying the development of neuropathic pain in patients with diabetic distal symmetrical polyneuropathy (DSP) are poorly understood. Systemic low-grade inflammation has been implicated, but there is still a considerable knowledge gap concerning its scope and meaning in this context. The aim of the study was to establish the broad inflammatory signature of painful diabetic DSP in serum samples from the Pain in Neuropathy Study, an observational cross-sectional multicentre study in which participants underwent deep phenotyping. In the present two cohorts exploration-replication study (180 participants in each cohort), serum samples from Pain in Neuropathy Study participants were analyzed with the Olink INFLAMMATION panel (Olink Bioscience, Uppsala, Sweden) that enables the simultaneous measurement of 92 inflammation-related proteins (mainly cytokines, chemokines, and growth factors). In both the exploration and the replication cohort, we identified a high-inflammation subgroup where 14 inflammation-related proteins in particular were associated with more neuropathy and higher pain intensity. The top 3 proteins were hepatocyte growth factor, colony-stimulating factor 1, and CD40 in both cohorts. In the exploratory cohort, additional clinical data were available, showing an association of inflammation with insomnia and self-reported psychological distress. Hence, this cross-sectional exploration-replication study seems to confirm that low-grade systemic inflammation is related to the severity of neuropathy and neuropathic pain in a subgroup of patients with diabetic DSP. The pathophysiological relevance of these proteins for the development of neuropathic pain in patients with diabetic DSP must be explored in more depth in future studies., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the International Association for the Study of Pain.)

Abstract: Endogenous pain modulation, as tested by the conditioned pain modulation (CPM) protocol, is typically less efficient in patients with chronic pain compared with healthy controls. We aimed to assess whether CPM is less efficient in patients with painful diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN) compared with those with nonpainful DPN. Characterization of the differences in central pain processing between these 2 groups might provide a central nervous system explanation to the presence or absence of pain in diabetic neuropathy in addition to the peripheral one. Two hundred seventy-one patients with DPN underwent CPM testing and clinical assessment, including quantitative sensory testing. Two modalities of the test stimuli (heat and pressure) conditioned to cold noxious water were assessed and compared between patients with painful and nonpainful DPN. No significant difference was found between the groups for pressure pain CPM; however, patients with painful DPN demonstrated unexpectedly more efficient CPMHEAT (-7.4 ± 1.0 vs -2.3 ± 1.6; P = 0.008). Efficient CPMHEAT was associated with higher clinical pain experienced in the 24 hours before testing (r = -0.15; P = 0.029) and greater loss of mechanical sensation (r = -0.135; P = 0.042). Moreover, patients who had mechanical hypoesthesia demonstrated more efficient CPMHEAT (P = 0.005). More efficient CPM among patients with painful DPN might result from not only central changes in pain modulation but also from altered sensory messages coming from tested affected body sites. This calls for the use of intact sites for proper assessment of pain modulation in patients with neuropathy., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the International Association for the Study of Pain.)

Abstract: The German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain (DFNS) quantitative sensory testing (QST) method for sensory phenotyping is used to stratify patients by mechanism-associated sensory phenotype, theorised to be predictive of intervention efficacy. We hypothesised that change in pain and sensory dysfunction would relate to change in sensory phenotype. We investigated the responsiveness of sensory phenotype to surgery in patients with an entrapment neuropathy. With ethical approval and consent, this observational study recruited patients with neurophysiologically confirmed carpal tunnel syndrome. Symptom and pain severity parameters and DFNS QST were evaluated before and after carpal tunnel surgery. Surgical outcome was evaluated by patient-rated change. Symptom severity score of the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire and associated pain and paraesthesia subgroups were comparators for clinically relevant change. Quantitative sensory testing results (n = 76) were compared with healthy controls (n = 54). At 6 months postsurgery, 92% participants reported a good surgical outcome and large decrease in pain and symptom severity (P < 0.001). Change in QST parameters occurred for thermal detection, thermal pain, and mechanical detection thresholds with a moderate to large effect size. Change in mechanical pain measures was not statistically significant. Change occurred in sensory phenotype postsurgery (P < 0.001); sensory phenotype was associated with symptom subgroup (P = 0.03) and patient-rated surgical outcome (P = 0.02). Quantitative sensory testing-derived sensory phenotype is sensitive to clinically important change. In an entrapment neuropathy model, sensory phenotype was associated with patient-reported symptoms and demonstrated statistically significant, clinically relevant change after disease-modifying intervention. Sensory phenotype was independent of disease severity and may reflect underlying neuropathophysiology., (Copyright © 2021 International Association for the Study of Pain.)

Background: Up to 25% of people who have had carpal tunnel release surgery (CTR) fail to report improvement; however, evidence for prognostic indicators in this surgical cohort is limited. To identify candidate prognostic factors, this study investigated the association of quantitative sensory testing (QST) derived sensory phenotype and attendant impairment with patient-reported surgical outcome., Methods: With ethical approval and informed consent, this prospective observational longitudinal study recruited patients from two London hospitals. Multimodal phenotyping measures including quantitative sensory testing (QST), pain parameters, insomnia, pain-related worry, mood and function, were evaluated prior to; and at 3- and 6-months post-surgery. Pain in median nerve distribution with electrophysiologically confirmed conduction delay and DN4 score ≥ 4 was defined as neuropathic. Primary outcome was patient-rated change at 6 months, dichotomised as poor outcome; "worse" or "no change" and good outcome; "slightly better", "much better" or "completely cured"., Results: Seventy-six patients participated. Prior to surgery, substantial heterogeneity in established categories of somatosensory function was observed with 21% of participants categorised as having a healthy sensory phenotype; 29% with thermal hyperalgesia; 32% mechanical hyperalgesia and 18% sensory loss. Seventy six percent of participants were classified as having neuropathic pain, 33% with high levels of pain related worry and 64% with clinical insomnia. Observed differences in pain, sleep impairment, psychological factors and function, between sensory phenotypic groups, was not significant. At 3- and 6-months post-surgery there was significant improvement in all phenotyping measures with a moderate to large effect size. Thermal and mechanical measures of somatosensation improved (p < 0.001), as did functional ability (p < 0.001). Symptom severity diminished (p < 0.001), as did pain-related worry (p < 0.001), anxiety (p = 0.02) and insomnia (p < 0.001). Patient-rated surgical outcome was good in 92% of the cohort, poor in 8%. Baseline sensory phenotype category was not associated with surgical outcome however pain-related worry, anxiety and functional interference were significantly associated with outcome (p ≤ 0.05)., Conclusion: In patients undergoing carpal tunnel surgery, pain-related worry, anxiety and pain functional interference are candidate prognostic outcome factors and require further elucidation., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Abstract: The analgesic efficacy and safety of 2 phase 2b studies of EMA401 (a highly selective angiotensin II type 2 receptor antagonist) in patients with postherpetic neuralgia (EMPHENE) and painful diabetic neuropathy (EMPADINE) were reported. These were multicentre, randomised, double-blind treatment studies conducted in participants with postherpetic neuralgia or type I/II diabetes mellitus with painful distal symmetrical sensorimotor neuropathy. Participants were randomised 1:1:1 to either placebo, EMA401 25 mg, or 100 mg twice daily (b.i.d) in the EMPHENE and 1:1 to placebo or EMA401 100 mg b.i.d. in the EMPADINE. The primary outcome for both the studies was change in weekly mean of the 24-hour average pain score, using a numeric rating scale from baseline to week 12. Both the studies were prematurely terminated due to preclinical hepatotoxicity on long-term dosing, although not observed in these studies. Out of the planned participants, a total of 129/360 (EMPHENE) and 137/400 (EMPADINE) participants were enrolled. The least square mean reduction in numeric rating scale pain score was numerically in favour of EMA401 100 mg arm in both EMPHENE (treatment difference: -0.5 [95% confidence interval: -1.6 to 0.6; P value: 0.35]) and EMPADINE (treatment difference: -0.6 [95% confidence interval: -1.4 to 0.1; P value: 0.10]) at the end of week 12. However, as the studies were terminated prematurely, no firm conclusion could be drawn but the consistent clinical improvement in pain intensity reduction across these 2 studies in 2 different populations is worth noting., (Copyright © 2021 International Association for the Study of Pain.)

Abstract: We report a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that assessed the antinociceptive efficacy of cannabinoids, cannabis-based medicines, and endocannabinoid system modulators on pain-associated behavioural outcomes in animal models of pathological or injury-related persistent pain. In April 2019, we systematically searched 3 online databases and used crowd science and machine learning to identify studies for inclusion. We calculated a standardised mean difference effect size for each comparison and performed a random-effects meta-analysis. We assessed the impact of study design characteristics and reporting of mitigations to reduce the risk of bias. We meta-analysed 374 studies in which 171 interventions were assessed for antinociceptive efficacy in rodent models of pathological or injury-related pain. Most experiments were conducted in male animals (86%). Antinociceptive efficacy was most frequently measured by attenuation of hypersensitivity to evoked limb withdrawal. Selective cannabinoid type 1, cannabinoid type 2, nonselective cannabinoid receptor agonists (including delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) and peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-alpha agonists (predominantly palmitoylethanolamide) significantly attenuated pain-associated behaviours in a broad range of inflammatory and neuropathic pain models. Fatty acid amide hydrolase inhibitors, monoacylglycerol lipase inhibitors, and cannabidiol significantly attenuated pain-associated behaviours in neuropathic pain models but yielded mixed results in inflammatory pain models. The reporting of criteria to reduce the risk of bias was low; therefore, the studies have an unclear risk of bias. The value of future studies could be enhanced by improving the reporting of methodological criteria, the clinical relevance of the models, and behavioural assessments. Notwithstanding, the evidence supports the hypothesis of cannabinoid-induced analgesia., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the International Association for the Study of Pain.)

Objectives: Persistent pain is common in HIV patients and breast cancer (BC) survivors. The aim of this study was to compare two patient groups with neuropathic pain (NP) regarding several psychological variables and Health-related Quality of Life. Although, treatment of pain is always planned individually, the knowledge of the differences and similarities between the patient groups may help us to understand more precisely the targets of the interventions for pain., Methods: Eighty nine BC and 73 HIV patients with symptoms of neuropathic pain (patients with ≥3/7 in the Douleur Neuropathique four interview part (DN4i)) participated in a cross-sectional study. Patients completed questionnaires about mood (HADS), symptoms of insomnia (ISI), pain catastrophizing (PCS), personality (TIPI), Mental and Physical Health-related Quality of Life (M/PHrQoL, RAND/SF-36), and pain intensity and interference (BPI). Analyses were applied by using t-tests and linear regression to assess associations between the studied factors., Results: HIV patients reported higher anxiety (p<0.001), depressive symptoms (p<0.001), pain catastrophizing (p<0.001) and pain interference (p<0.001), poorer sleep (p<0.001), and lower HrQoL in all dimensions compared with BC survivors. There were significant differences in personality traits extraversion, emotional stability, and agreeableness between the two patient groups. In HIV patients, pain interference ( β =-0.344, p<0.001) and mood ( β =-0.580, p<0.001) and in the BC group, mood ( β =-0.591, p<0.001), extraversion ( β =0.229, p=0.005) and sleep ( β =-0.154, p=0.042) associated with MHrQoL. Pain interference (HIV β =-0.645, p<0.001, BC β =-0.491, p<0.001) and age (HIV β =-0.016, p=0.042 and BC β =-0.018, p=0.019) associated with PHrQoL in both groups, and catastrophizing in the BC group ( β =-0.303, p<0.001)., Conclusions: HIV patients and BC survivors with neuropathic pain, measured with DN4i, have significant differences in various health-related variables and Health-related Quality of Life with both patient groups reporting low HrQoL. The differences in low HrQoL may reflect the fundamental differences between these diseases, BC survivors in remission and HIV patients living with a chronic disease that is under control. This study brings information about the diversity of different patient populations with symptoms of neuropathic pain, and how neuropathic pain associates with wide range of health-related factors. Interventions to support better coping with the symptoms of neuropathic pain could be tailored more individually if the background disease is taken into account., (© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.)

Objectives: Chronic neuropathic pain is common in people living with HIV. Psychological treatments can improve quality of life for people with chronic pain in general, and online delivery can increase access to these treatments. However, the acceptability of psychological treatment and online delivery have not been investigated in-depth in people living with HIV and chronic neuropathic pain. Therefore, a qualitative study was undertaken to explore views about a psychological treatment for pain management in this population and to investigate the acceptability of online treatment delivery., Methods: Qualitative interviews were conducted and analysed using inductive thematic analysis, adopting a critical realist perspective. Twenty-six people living with HIV and chronic neuropathic pain completed semi-structured interviews. Their views about a psychological treatment for pain management and online delivery were explored in-depth., Results: Three themes and 12 subthemes were identified. Theme one represents a desire for a broader approach to pain management, including not wanting to take more pills and having multidimensional goals that were not just focussed on pain relief. Theme two includes barriers to online psychologically-based pain management, including concerns about using the Internet and confidentiality. Theme three describes treatment facilitators, including accessibility, therapist support, social connection, and experiencing success., Conclusions: A psychological treatment for chronic neuropathic pain management appears acceptable for people living with HIV. Therapist-supported online delivery of cognitive-behavioural pain management may be acceptable for people living with HIV given appropriate development of the treatment to address identified barriers to engagement. These data can inform developments to enhance engagement in online psychologically-informed pain management in people living with HIV and more broadly in remote delivery of psychological treatments., (© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.)

Background: At least one-third of HIV-1-afflicted individuals experience peripheral neuropathy. Although the underlying mechanisms are not known, they may involve neurotoxic HIV-1 proteins., Methods: We assessed the influence of the neurotoxic HIV-1 regulatory protein, Tat, on inflammatory and neuropathic nociceptive behaviours using transgenic male and female mice that conditionally expressed (or did not express) HIV-1 Tat 1-86 in fibrillary acidic protein-expressing glia in the central and peripheral nervous systems., Results: Tat induction significantly attenuated the time spent paw-licking following formalin injection (2.5%, i.pl.) in both male and female mice. However, significant sex differences were observed in the onset and magnitude of inflammation and sensory sensitivity following complete Freund's adjuvant (CFA) injection (10%, i.pl.) after Tat activation. Unlike female mice, male mice showed a significant attenuation of paw swelling and an absence of mechanical/thermal hypersensitivity in response to CFA after Tat induction. Male Tat(+) mice also showed accelerated recovery from chronic constrictive nerve injury (CCI)-induced neuropathic mechanical and thermal hypersensitivity compared to female Tat(+) mice. Morphine (3.2 mg/kg) fully reversed CCI-induced mechanical hypersensitivity in female Tat(-) mice, but not in Tat(+) females., Conclusions: The ability of Tat to decrease oedema, paw swelling, and limit allodynia suggests a sequel of events in which Tat-induced functional deficits precede the onset of mechanical hypersensitivity. Moreover, HIV-1 Tat attenuated responses to inflammatory and neuropathic insults in a sex-dependent manner. HIV-1 Tat appears to directly contribute to HIV sensory neuropathy and reveals sex differences in HIV responsiveness and/or the underlying peripheral neuroinflammatory and nociceptive mechanisms., (© 2020 European Pain Federation - EFIC®.)

Background and Aims: Healthy women have generally been found to have increased experimental pain perception and chronic pain has a higher prevalence in female as compared to male patients. However, no study has investigated whether pain intensity and pain perception thresholds are distinct or similar between sexes within various chronic pain entities. We investigated whether average pain intensities and pain thresholds assessed using quantitative sensory testing (QST) differed between women and men suffering from three distinct chronic pain conditions: Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS type I), peripheral nerve injury (PNI) or polyneuropathy (PNP), as compared to paired healthy volunteers., Methods: QST data of 1,252 patients (669 female, 583 male) with PNI (n = 342), PNP (n = 571) or CRPS (n = 339), and average pain intensity reports from previously published studies were included. Absolute and z-values (adjusted for age and body region) of cold, heat, pressure (PPT) and pinprick pain thresholds were compared in generalized linear models with aetiology, duration of underlying pain disease and average pain intensity as fixed effects., Results: Average pain intensity during the past four weeks did not differ between women and men, in both mean and range. In women absolute pain thresholds for cold, heat and pinprick were lower than in males across all diagnoses (p < .05). However, after z-transformation these differences disappeared except for PPT in CRPS (p = .001)., Discussion: Pain thresholds in patients show only minor sex differences. However, these differences mimic those observed in healthy subjects and do not seem to be linked to specific pathophysiological processes., Significance: Female healthy participants and female patients with neuropathic pain conditions or CRPS I report lower pain thresholds compared to males, but pain intensity is similar and there is no sex difference in the extent to which the thresholds are altered in neuropathic pain or CRPS. Thus, the sex differences observed in various chronic pain conditions mimic those obtained in healthy participants, indicating that these differences are not linked to specific pathophysiological processes and are of minor clinical relevance., (© 2020 European Pain Federation - EFIC®.)

Painful distal symmetrical polyneuropathy is common in HIV and is associated with reduced quality of life. Research has not explored the experience of neuropathic pain in people with HIV from a person-centred perspective. Therefore, a qualitative interview study was conducted to more deeply understand the experience and impact of neuropathic pain in this population. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 26 people with HIV and peripheral neuropathic pain symptoms. Interviews explored the impact of pain and participants' pain management strategies. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis. Four themes and 11 subthemes were identified. Theme 1 reflects the complex characterisation of neuropathic pain, including the perceived unusual nature of this pain and diagnostic uncertainty. Theme 2 centred on the interconnected impacts of pain on mood and functioning and includes how pain disrupts relationships and threatens social inclusion. Theme 3 reflects the struggle for pain relief, including participants' attempts to "exhaust all options" and limited success in finding lasting relief. The final theme describes how pain management is complicated by living with HIV; this theme includes the influence of HIV stigma on pain communication and pain as an unwanted reminder of HIV. These data support the relevance of investigating and targeting psychosocial factors to manage neuropathic pain in HIV.

Pain and emotional distress have a reciprocal relation. The amygdala has been implicated in emotional processing. The central nucleus of the amygdala (CeA) receives nociceptive information from the dorsal horn of spinal cord and is responsible for the central plasticity in chronic pain. Neuropathic pain is a type of severe chronic pain and can be strongly influenced by emotional components. Plastic changes in the CeA may play a key role in the development or maintenance or both of neuropathic pain. We studied the expression levels of proteins in the CeA of spinal nerve transection (SNT) model rats. Total tissue lysate proteins were separated by two-dimensional-gel electrophoresis (2D-PAGE). Gels from different time points were compared using Progenesis SameSpot software, and the spots with Fold Change greater than 2 were excised for protein identification by mass spectrometry. We identified more than 50 cytosolic proteins as significantly altered in their expression levels in the CeA of SNT rats, and most of these changes have been validated at mRNA levels by qRT-PCR. We also identified more than 40 membrane proteins as notably up- or down-regulated in the CeA of SNT model rats relative to a control using stable isotope dimethyl labeling nano-LC-MS/MS based proteomics and found that one such protein, doublecortin (DCX), a microtubule-associated protein expressed by neuronal precursor cells during development, is specifically localized in the membrane fraction without changes in total amount of the protein. Immunohistochemistry showed that doublecortin is expressed in processes in the CeA of rats 7 and 21 days after SNT surgery, suggesting that doublecortin is one of the proteins that may contribute to the plastic changes, namely, redevelopment or rewiring of neural networks, in the CeA in the neuropathic pain model. These dysregulated proteins may play roles in reciprocal relationships between pain and psychological distress in the amygdala and contribute to central sensitization. Data are available via ProteomeXchange with identifier PXD017473.

Background: Neuropathic pain affects 7-10% of people, but responds poorly to pharmacotherapy, indicating a need for better treatments. Mechanistic research on neuropathic pain frequently uses human surrogate models of the secondary hyperalgesia that is a common feature of neuropathic pain. Experimentally induced secondary hyperalgesia has been manipulated with pharmacological and non-pharmacological methods to clarify the relative contributions of different mechanisms to secondary hyperalgesia. However, this literature has not been systematically synthesised. The aim of this systematic review is to identify, describe, and compare methods that have been used to manipulate experimentally induced secondary hyperalgesia in healthy humans., Methods: A systematic search strategy will be supplemented by reference list checks and direct contact with identified laboratories to maximise the identification of data reporting the experimental manipulation of experimentally induced secondary hyperalgesia in healthy humans. Duplicated screening, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction procedures will be used. Authors will be asked to provide data as necessary. Data will be pooled and meta-analyses conducted where possible, with subgrouping according to manipulation method. Manipulation methods will be ranked for potency and risk., Discussion: The results of this review will provide a useful reference for researchers interested in using experimental methods to manipulate secondary hyperalgesia in humans and will help to clarify the relative contributions of different mechanisms to secondary hyperalgesia., Systematic Review Registration: This protocol will be registered on PROSPERO before the review begins. Review records will be updated on PROSPERO once the review is complete. This review is intended for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Analyses and scripts will be made publicly available.

The upcoming 11th revision of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) of the World Health Organization (WHO) offers a unique opportunity to improve the representation of painful disorders. For this purpose, the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) has convened an interdisciplinary task force of pain specialists. Here, we present the case for a reclassification of nervous system lesions or diseases associated with persistent or recurrent pain for ≥3 months. The new classification lists the most common conditions of peripheral neuropathic pain: trigeminal neuralgia, peripheral nerve injury, painful polyneuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, and painful radiculopathy. Conditions of central neuropathic pain include pain caused by spinal cord or brain injury, poststroke pain, and pain associated with multiple sclerosis. Diseases not explicitly mentioned in the classification are captured in residual categories of ICD-11. Conditions of chronic neuropathic pain are either insufficiently defined or missing in the current version of the ICD, despite their prevalence and clinical importance. We provide the short definitions of diagnostic entities for which we submitted more detailed content models to the WHO. Definitions and content models were established in collaboration with the Classification Committee of the IASP's Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group (NeuPSIG). Up to 10% of the general population experience neuropathic pain. The majority of these patients do not receive satisfactory relief with existing treatments. A precise classification of chronic neuropathic pain in ICD-11 is necessary to document this public health need and the therapeutic challenges related to chronic neuropathic pain.

Integrating information on physical function and pain intensity into a composite measure may provide a useful method for assessing treatment efficacy in clinical trials of chronic pain. Accordingly, we evaluated composite outcomes in trials of duloxetine, gabapentin, and pregabalin. Data on 2287 patients in 9 trials for painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) and 1513 patients in 6 trials for postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) were analyzed. All trials assessed pain intensity on a 0 to 10 numeric rating scale and physical function with the 10-item subscale of the Short Form-36, ranging 0 to 100 with higher scores indicating better function. Correlation between change in pain intensity from baseline to posttreatment and change in physical function was small in DPN (ρ = -0.22; P < 0.001) and nonsignificant in PHN (ρ = -0.05; P = 0.08). Assay sensitivities of 10 composite outcomes were examined in a random subsample of patients enrolled in pregabalin trials for DPN and PHN. Of these, a responder outcome of ≥50% improvement in pain intensity, or a ≥20% improvement in pain intensity and ≥30% improvement in physical function was not only significantly associated with pregabalin vs placebo in the development cohorts for both pain conditions but also in the validation cohorts. Furthermore, this composite outcome was cross-validated in trials of gabapentin for PHN and duloxetine for DPN, and had slightly lower number needed to treat than a standard responder outcome of ≥50% reduction in pain intensity. In summary, this study identified a composite outcome of pain intensity and physical function that may improve the assay sensitivity of future neuropathic pain trials.

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.

Non-freezing cold injury develops after sustained exposure to cold temperatures, resulting in tissue cooling but not freezing. This can result in persistent sensory disturbance of the hands and feet including numbness, paraesthesia and chronic pain. Both vascular and neurological aetiologies of this pain have been suggested but remain unproven. We prospectively approached patients referred for clinical assessment of chronic pain following non-freezing cold injury between 12 February 2014 and 30 November 2016. Of 47 patients approached, 42 consented to undergo detailed neurological evaluations including: questionnaires to detail pain location and characteristics, structured neurological examination, quantitative sensory testing, nerve conduction studies and skin biopsy for intraepidermal nerve fibre assessment. Of the 42 study participants, all had experienced non-freezing cold injury while serving in the UK armed services and the majority were of African descent (76.2%) and male (95.2%). Many participants reported multiple exposures to cold. The median time between initial injury and referral was 3.72 years. Pain was principally localized to the hands and the feet, neuropathic in nature and in all study participants associated with cold hypersensitivity. Clinical examination and quantitative sensory testing were consistent with a sensory neuropathy. In all cases, large fibre nerve conduction studies were normal. The intraepidermal nerve fibre density was markedly reduced with 90.5% of participants having a count at or below the 0.05 centile of published normative controls. Using the Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group of the International Association for the Study of Pain grading for neuropathic pain, 100% had probable and 95.2% definite neuropathic pain. Chronic non-freezing cold injury is a disabling neuropathic pain disorder due to a sensory neuropathy. Why some individuals develop an acute painful sensory neuropathy on sustained cold exposure is not yet known, but individuals of African descent appear vulnerable. Screening tools, such as the DN4 questionnaire, and treatment algorithms for neuropathic pain should now be used in the management of these patients., (© The Author (2017). Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Guarantors of Brain.)

In a recent cluster analysis, it has been shown that patients with peripheral neuropathic pain can be grouped into 3 sensory phenotypes based on quantitative sensory testing profiles, which are mainly characterized by either sensory loss, intact sensory function and mild thermal hyperalgesia and/or allodynia, or loss of thermal detection and mild mechanical hyperalgesia and/or allodynia. Here, we present an algorithm for allocation of individual patients to these subgroups. The algorithm is nondeterministic-ie, a patient can be sorted to more than one phenotype-and can separate patients with neuropathic pain from healthy subjects (sensitivity: 78%, specificity: 94%). We evaluated the frequency of each phenotype in a population of patients with painful diabetic polyneuropathy (n = 151), painful peripheral nerve injury (n = 335), and postherpetic neuralgia (n = 97) and propose sample sizes of study populations that need to be screened to reach a subpopulation large enough to conduct a phenotype-stratified study. The most common phenotype in diabetic polyneuropathy was sensory loss (83%), followed by mechanical hyperalgesia (75%) and thermal hyperalgesia (34%, note that percentages are overlapping and not additive). In peripheral nerve injury, frequencies were 37%, 59%, and 50%, and in postherpetic neuralgia, frequencies were 31%, 63%, and 46%. For parallel study design, either the estimated effect size of the treatment needs to be high (>0.7) or only phenotypes that are frequent in the clinical entity under study can realistically be performed. For crossover design, populations under 200 patients screened are sufficient for all phenotypes and clinical entities with a minimum estimated treatment effect size of 0.5.

Background: Gabapentin is commonly used to treat neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage). This review updates a review published in 2014, and previous reviews published in 2011, 2005 and 2000., Objectives: To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of gabapentin in chronic neuropathic pain in adults., Search Methods: For this update we searched CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase for randomised controlled trials from January 2014 to January 2017. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and online clinical trials registries., Selection Criteria: We included randomised, double-blind trials of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing gabapentin (any route of administration) with placebo or another active treatment for neuropathic pain, with participant-reported pain assessment., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality and potential bias. Primary outcomes were participants with substantial pain relief (at least 50% pain relief over baseline or very much improved on Patient Global Impression of Change scale (PGIC)), or moderate pain relief (at least 30% pain relief over baseline or much or very much improved on PGIC). We performed a pooled analysis for any substantial or moderate benefit. Where pooled analysis was possible, we used dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) or harmful outcome (NNH). We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created 'Summary of findings' tables., Main Results: We included four new studies (530 participants), and excluded three previously included studies (126 participants). In all, 37 studies provided information on 5914 participants. Most studies used oral gabapentin or gabapentin encarbil at doses of 1200 mg or more daily in different neuropathic pain conditions, predominantly postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy. Study duration was typically four to 12 weeks. Not all studies reported important outcomes of interest. High risk of bias occurred mainly due to small size (especially in cross-over studies), and handling of data after study withdrawal.In postherpetic neuralgia, more participants (32%) had substantial benefit (at least 50% pain relief or PGIC very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (17%) (RR 1.8 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.1); NNT 6.7 (5.4 to 8.7); 8 studies, 2260 participants, moderate-quality evidence). More participants (46%) had moderate benefit (at least 30% pain relief or PGIC much or very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (25%) (RR 1.8 (95% CI 1.6 to 2.0); NNT 4.8 (4.1 to 6.0); 8 studies, 2260 participants, moderate-quality evidence).In painful diabetic neuropathy, more participants (38%) had substantial benefit (at least 50% pain relief or PGIC very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (21%) (RR 1.9 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.3); NNT 5.9 (4.6 to 8.3); 6 studies, 1277 participants, moderate-quality evidence). More participants (52%) had moderate benefit (at least 30% pain relief or PGIC much or very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (37%) (RR 1.4 (95% CI 1.3 to 1.6); NNT 6.6 (4.9 to 9.9); 7 studies, 1439 participants, moderate-quality evidence).For all conditions combined, adverse event withdrawals were more common with gabapentin (11%) than with placebo (8.2%) (RR 1.4 (95% CI 1.1 to 1.7); NNH 30 (20 to 65); 22 studies, 4346 participants, high-quality evidence). Serious adverse events were no more common with gabapentin (3.2%) than with placebo (2.8%) (RR 1.2 (95% CI 0.8 to 1.7); 19 studies, 3948 participants, moderate-quality evidence); there were eight deaths (very low-quality evidence). Participants experiencing at least one adverse event were more common with gabapentin (63%) than with placebo (49%) (RR 1.3 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.4); NNH 7.5 (6.1 to 9.6); 18 studies, 4279 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Individual adverse events occurred significantly more often with gabapentin. Participants taking gabapentin experienced dizziness (19%), somnolence (14%), peripheral oedema (7%), and gait disturbance (14%)., Authors' Conclusions: Gabapentin at doses of 1800 mg to 3600 mg daily (1200 mg to 3600 mg gabapentin encarbil) can provide good levels of pain relief to some people with postherpetic neuralgia and peripheral diabetic neuropathy. Evidence for other types of neuropathic pain is very limited. The outcome of at least 50% pain intensity reduction is regarded as a useful outcome of treatment by patients, and the achievement of this degree of pain relief is associated with important beneficial effects on sleep interference, fatigue, and depression, as well as quality of life, function, and work. Around 3 or 4 out of 10 participants achieved this degree of pain relief with gabapentin, compared with 1 or 2 out of 10 for placebo. Over half of those treated with gabapentin will not have worthwhile pain relief but may experience adverse events. Conclusions have not changed since the previous update of this review.

Patients with neuropathic pain are heterogeneous in etiology, pathophysiology, and clinical appearance. They exhibit a variety of pain-related sensory symptoms and signs (sensory profile). Different sensory profiles might indicate different classes of neurobiological mechanisms, and hence subgroups with different sensory profiles might respond differently to treatment. The aim of the investigation was to identify subgroups in a large sample of patients with neuropathic pain using hypothesis-free statistical methods on the database of 3 large multinational research networks (German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain (DFNS), IMI-Europain, and Neuropain). Standardized quantitative sensory testing was used in 902 (test cohort) and 233 (validation cohort) patients with peripheral neuropathic pain of different etiologies. For subgrouping, we performed a cluster analysis using 13 quantitative sensory testing parameters. Three distinct subgroups with characteristic sensory profiles were identified and replicated. Cluster 1 (sensory loss, 42%) showed a loss of small and large fiber function in combination with paradoxical heat sensations. Cluster 2 (thermal hyperalgesia, 33%) was characterized by preserved sensory functions in combination with heat and cold hyperalgesia and mild dynamic mechanical allodynia. Cluster 3 (mechanical hyperalgesia, 24%) was characterized by a loss of small fiber function in combination with pinprick hyperalgesia and dynamic mechanical allodynia. All clusters occurred across etiologies but frequencies differed. We present a new approach of subgrouping patients with peripheral neuropathic pain of different etiologies according to intrinsic sensory profiles. These 3 profiles may be related to pathophysiological mechanisms and may be useful in clinical trial design to enrich the study population for treatment responders., Competing Interests: Sponsorships or competing interests that may be relevant to content are disclosed at the end of this article.

Background: This review is an update of 'Topical capsaicin (high concentration) for chronic neuropathic pain in adults' last updated in Issue 2, 2013. Topical creams with capsaicin are used to treat peripheral neuropathic pain. Following application to the skin, capsaicin causes enhanced sensitivity, followed by a period with reduced sensitivity and, after repeated applications, persistent desensitisation. High-concentration (8%) capsaicin patches were developed to increase the amount of capsaicin delivered; rapid delivery was thought to improve tolerability because cutaneous nociceptors are 'defunctionalised' quickly. The single application avoids noncompliance. Only the 8% patch formulation of capsaicin is available, with a capsaicin concentration about 100 times greater than conventional creams. High-concentration topical capsaicin is given as a single patch application to the affected part. It must be applied under highly controlled conditions, often following local anaesthetic, due to the initial intense burning sensation it causes. The benefits are expected to last for about 12 weeks, when another application might be made., Objectives: To review the evidence from controlled trials on the efficacy and tolerability of topically applied, high-concentration (8%) capsaicin in chronic neuropathic pain in adults., Search Methods: For this update, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two clinical trials registries, and a pharmaceutical company's website to 10 June 2016., Selection Criteria: Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of at least 6 weeks' duration, using high-concentration (5% or more) topical capsaicin to treat neuropathic pain., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality and potential bias. Where pooled analysis was possible, we used dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and numbers needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods.Efficacy outcomes reflecting long-duration pain relief after a single drug application were from the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at specific points, usually 8 and 12 weeks. We also assessed average pain scores over weeks 2 to 8 and 2 to 12 and the number of participants with pain intensity reduction of at least 30% or at least 50% over baseline, and information on adverse events and withdrawals.We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table., Main Results: We included eight studies, involving 2488 participants, two more studies and 415 more participants than the previous version of this review. Studies were of generally good methodological quality; we judged only one study at high risk of bias, due to small size. Two studies used a placebo control and six used 0.04% topical capsaicin as an 'active' placebo to help maintain blinding. Efficacy outcomes were inconsistently reported, resulting in analyses for most outcomes being based on less than complete data.For postherpetic neuralgia, we found four studies (1272 participants). At both 8 and 12 weeks about 10% more participants reported themselves much or very much improved with high-concentration capsaicin than with 'active' placebo, with point estimates of numbers needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTs) of 8.8 (95% confidence interval (CI) 5.3 to 26) with high-concentration capsaicin and 7.0 (95% CI 4.6 to 15) with 'active' placebo (2 studies, 571 participants; moderate quality evidence). More participants (about 10%) had average 2 to 8-week and 2 to 12-week pain intensity reductions over baseline of at least 30% and at least 50% with capsaicin than control, with NNT values between 10 and 12 (2 to 4 studies, 571 to 1272 participants; very low quality evidence).For painful HIV-neuropathy, we found two studies (801 participants). One study reported the proportion of participants who were much or very much improved at 12 weeks (27% with high-concentration capsaicin and 10% with 'active' placebo). For both studies, more participants (about 10%) had average 2 to 12-week pain intensity reductions over baseline of at least 30% with capsaicin than control, with an NNT of 11 (very low quality evidence).For peripheral diabetic neuropathy, we found one study (369 participants). It reported about 10% more participants who were much or very much improved at 8 and 12 weeks. One small study of 46 participants with persistent pain following inguinal herniorrhaphy did not show a difference between capsaicin and placebo for pain reduction (very low quality evidence).We downgraded the quality of the evidence for efficacy outcomes by one to three levels due to sparse data, imprecision, possible effects of imputation methods, and susceptibility to publication bias.Local adverse events were common, but not consistently reported. Serious adverse events were no more common with active treatment (3.5%) than control (3.2%). Adverse event withdrawals did not differ between groups, but lack of efficacy withdrawals were somewhat more common with control than active treatment, based on small numbers of events (six to eight studies, 21 to 67 events; moderate quality evidence, downgraded due to few events). No deaths were judged to be related to study medication., Authors' Conclusions: High-concentration topical capsaicin used to treat postherpetic neuralgia, HIV-neuropathy, and painful diabetic neuropathy generated more participants with moderate or substantial levels of pain relief than control treatment using a much lower concentration of capsaicin. These results should be interpreted with caution as the quality of the evidence was moderate or very low. The additional proportion who benefited over control was not large, but for those who did obtain high levels of pain relief, there were usually additional improvements in sleep, fatigue, depression, and quality of life. High-concentration topical capsaicin is similar in its effects to other therapies for chronic pain.

HIV-associated sensory neuropathy (HIV-SN) is the most frequent manifestation of HIV disease. It often presents with significant neuropathic pain and is associated with previous exposure to neurotoxic nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. However, HIV-SN prevalence remains high even in resource-rich settings where these drugs are no longer used. Previous evidence suggests that exposure to indinavir, a protease inhibitor commonly used in antiretroviral therapy, may link to elevated HIV-SN risk. Here, we investigated whether indinavir treatment was associated with the development of a "dying back" axonal neuropathy and changes in pain-relevant limb withdrawal and thigmotactic behaviours. After 2 intravenous injections of indinavir (50 mg/kg, 4 days apart), adult rats developed hind paw mechanical hypersensitivity, which peaked around 2 weeks post first injection (44% reduction from baseline). At this time, animals also had (1) significantly changed thigmotactic behaviour (62% reduction in central zone entries) comparing with the controls and (2) a significant reduction (45%) in hind paw intraepidermal nerve fibre density. Treatment with gabapentin, but not amitriptyline, was associated with a complete attenuation of hind paw mechanical hypersensitivity observed with indinavir treatment. Furthermore, we found a small but significant increase in microglia with the effector morphology in the lumbar spinal dorsal horn in indinavir-treated animals, coupled with significantly increased expression of phospho-p38 in microglia. In summary, we have reported neuropathic pain-related sensory and behavioural changes accompanied by a significant loss of hind paw skin sensory innervation in a rat model of indinavir-induced peripheral neuropathy that is suitable for further pathophysiological investigation and preclinical evaluation of novel analgesics.

HIV-associated sensory peripheral neuropathy (HIV-SN) afflicts approximately 50% of patients on antiretroviral therapy, and is associated with significant neuropathic pain. Simple accurate diagnostic instruments are required for clinical research and daily practice in both high- and low-resource setting. A 4-item clinical tool (CHANT: Clinical HIV-associated Neuropathy Tool) assessing symptoms (pain and numbness) and signs (ankle reflexes and vibration sense) was developed by selecting and combining the most accurate measurands from a deep phenotyping study of HIV positive people (Pain In Neuropathy Study-HIV-PINS). CHANT was alpha-tested in silico against the HIV-PINS dataset and then clinically validated and field-tested in HIV-positive cohorts in London, UK and Johannesburg, South Africa. The Utah Early Neuropathy Score (UENS) was used as the reference standard in both settings. In a second step, neuropathic pain in the presence of HIV-SN was assessed using the Douleur Neuropathique en 4 Questions (DN4)-interview and a body map. CHANT achieved high accuracy on alpha-testing with sensitivity and specificity of 82% and 90%, respectively. In 30 patients in London, CHANT diagnosed 43.3% (13/30) HIV-SN (66.7% with neuropathic pain); sensitivity = 100%, specificity = 85%, and likelihood ratio = 6.7 versus UENS, internal consistency = 0.88 (Cronbach alpha), average item-total correlation = 0.73 (Spearman's Rho), and inter-tester concordance > 0.93 (Spearman's Rho). In 50 patients in Johannesburg, CHANT diagnosed 66% (33/50) HIV-SN (78.8% neuropathic pain); sensitivity = 74.4%, specificity = 85.7%, and likelihood ratio = 5.29 versus UENS. A positive CHANT score markedly increased of pre- to post-test clinical certainty of HIV-SN from 43% to 83% in London, and from 66% to 92% in Johannesburg. In conclusion, a combination of four easily and quickly assessed clinical items can be used to accurately diagnose HIV-SN. DN4-interview used in the context of bilateral feet pain can be used to identify those with neuropathic pain., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Neuropathic pain and spasticity after spinal cord injury (SCI) represent significant problems. Palmitoylethanolamide (PEA), a fatty acid amide that is produced in many cells in the body, is thought to potentiate the action of endocannabinoids and to reduce pain and inflammation. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel multicenter study was performed to investigate the effect of ultramicronized PEA (PEA-um) as add-on therapy on neuropathic pain in individuals with SCI. A pain diary was completed and questionnaires were completed before and after the 12-week treatment with either placebo or PEA-um. The primary outcome measure was the change in mean neuropathic pain intensity from the 1-week baseline period to the last week of treatment measured on a numeric rating scale ranging from 0 to 10. The primary efficacy analysis was the intention to treat (baseline observation carried forward). Secondary outcomes included a per protocol analysis and effects on spasticity, evoked pain, sleep problems, anxiety, depression, and global impression of change. We randomized 73 individuals with neuropathic pain due to SCI, of which 5 had a major protocol violation, and thus 68 were included in the primary analysis. There was no difference in mean pain intensity between PEA-um and placebo treatment (P = 0.46, mean reductions in pain scores 0.4 (-0.1 to 0.9) vs 0.7 (0.2-1.2); difference of means 0.3 (-0.4 to 0.9)). There was also no effect of PEA-um as add-on therapy on spasticity, insomnia, or psychological functioning. PEA was not associated with more adverse effects than placebo.

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.

Disabling neuropathic pain (NeuP) is a common sequel of diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN). We aimed to characterise the sensory phenotype of patients with and without NeuP, assess screening tools for NeuP, and relate DPN severity to NeuP. The Pain in Neuropathy Study (PiNS) is an observational cross-sectional multicentre study. A total of 191 patients with DPN underwent neurological examination, quantitative sensory testing, nerve conduction studies, and skin biopsy for intraepidermal nerve fibre density assessment. A set of questionnaires assessed the presence of pain, pain intensity, pain distribution, and the psychological and functional impact of pain. Patients were divided according to the presence of DPN, and thereafter according to the presence and severity of NeuP. The DN4 questionnaire demonstrated excellent sensitivity (88%) and specificity (93%) in screening for NeuP. There was a positive correlation between greater neuropathy severity (r = 0.39, P < 0.01), higher HbA1c (r = 0.21, P < 0.01), and the presence (and severity) of NeuP. Diabetic peripheral neuropathy sensory phenotype is characterised by hyposensitivity to applied stimuli that was more marked in the moderate/severe NeuP group than in the mild NeuP or no NeuP groups. Brush-evoked allodynia was present in only those with NeuP (15%); the paradoxical heat sensation did not discriminate between those with (40%) and without (41.3%) NeuP. The "irritable nociceptor" subgroup could only be applied to a minority of patients (6.3%) with NeuP. This study provides a firm basis to rationalise further phenotyping of painful DPN, for instance, stratification of patients with DPN for analgesic drug trials.

Neuropathic pain affects up to 10% of the general population, but drug treatments recommended for the treatment of neuropathic pain are associated with modest efficacy and/or produce dose-limiting side effects. Hence, neuropathic pain is an unmet medical need. In the past 2 decades, research on the pathobiology of neuropathic pain has revealed many novel pain targets for use in analgesic drug discovery programs. However, these efforts have been largely unsuccessful as molecules that showed promising pain relief in rodent models of neuropathic pain generally failed to produce analgesia in early phase clinical trials in patients with neuropathic pain. One notable exception is the angiotensin II type 2 (AT2) receptor that has clinical validity on the basis of a successful double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial of EMA401, a highly selective, orally active, peripherally restricted AT2 receptor antagonist in patients with postherpetic neuralgia. In this study, we review research to date on target validation, efficacy, and mode of action of small molecule AT2 receptor antagonists in rodent models of peripheral neuropathic pain and in cultured human sensory neurons, the preclinical pharmacokinetics of these compounds, and the outcome of the above clinical trial.

For genetic research to contribute more fully to furthering our knowledge of neuropathic pain, we require an agreed, valid, and feasible approach to phenotyping, to allow collaboration and replication in samples of sufficient size. Results from genetic studies on neuropathic pain have been inconsistent and have met with replication difficulties, in part because of differences in phenotypes used for case ascertainment. Because there is no consensus on the nature of these phenotypes, nor on the methods of collecting them, this study aimed to provide guidelines on collecting and reporting phenotypes in cases and controls for genetic studies. Consensus was achieved through a staged approach: (1) systematic literature review to identify all neuropathic pain phenotypes used in previous genetic studies; (2) Delphi survey to identify the most useful neuropathic pain phenotypes and their validity and feasibility; and (3) meeting of experts to reach consensus on the optimal phenotype(s) to be collected from patients with neuropathic pain for genetic studies. A basic "entry level" set of phenotypes was identified for any genetic study of neuropathic pain. This set identifies cases of "possible" neuropathic pain, and controls, and includes: (1) a validated symptom-based questionnaire to determine whether any pain is likely to be neuropathic; (2) body chart or checklist to identify whether the area of pain distribution is neuroanatomically logical; and (3) details of pain history (intensity, duration, any formal diagnosis). This NeuroPPIC "entry level" set of phenotypes can be expanded by more extensive and specific measures, as determined by scientific requirements and resource availability.

Background: Although often considered to be lacking adequate evidence, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used in the management of neuropathic pain. Previous surveys found 18% to 47% of affected people reported using NSAIDs specifically for their neuropathic pain, although possibly not in the United Kingdom (UK)., Objectives: To assess the analgesic efficacy of oral NSAIDs for chronic neuropathic pain in adults, when compared to placebo or another active intervention, and the adverse events associated with its use in clinical trials., Search Methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE from inception to 29 May 2015, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, and an online trials registry., Selection Criteria: We included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks duration or longer, comparing any oral NSAID with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality. We did not carry out any pooled analysis., Main Results: We included two studies involving 251 participants with chronic low back pain with a neuropathic component or postherpetic neuralgia; 209 of these participants were involved in a study of an experimental NSAID not used in clinical practice, and of the remaining 42, only 16 had neuropathic pain. This represented only third tier evidence, and was of very low quality. There was no indication of any significant pain reduction with NSAIDs. Adverse event rates were low, with insufficient events for any analysis., Authors' Conclusions: There is no evidence to support or refute the use of oral NSAIDs to treat neuropathic pain conditions.

Background: New drug treatments, clinical trials, and standards of quality for assessment of evidence justify an update of evidence-based recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain. Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE), we revised the Special Interest Group on Neuropathic Pain (NeuPSIG) recommendations for the pharmacotherapy of neuropathic pain based on the results of a systematic review and meta-analysis., Methods: Between April, 2013, and January, 2014, NeuPSIG of the International Association for the Study of Pain did a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised, double-blind studies of oral and topical pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain, including studies published in peer-reviewed journals since January, 1966, and unpublished trials retrieved from ClinicalTrials.gov and websites of pharmaceutical companies. We used number needed to treat (NNT) for 50% pain relief as a primary measure and assessed publication bias; NNT was calculated with the fixed-effects Mantel-Haenszel method., Findings: 229 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Analysis of publication bias suggested a 10% overstatement of treatment effects. Studies published in peer-reviewed journals reported greater effects than did unpublished studies (r(2) 9·3%, p=0·009). Trial outcomes were generally modest: in particular, combined NNTs were 6·4 (95% CI 5·2-8·4) for serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors, mainly including duloxetine (nine of 14 studies); 7·7 (6·5-9·4) for pregabalin; 7·2 (5·9-9·21) for gabapentin, including gabapentin extended release and enacarbil; and 10·6 (7·4-19·0) for capsaicin high-concentration patches. NNTs were lower for tricyclic antidepressants, strong opioids, tramadol, and botulinum toxin A, and undetermined for lidocaine patches. Based on GRADE, final quality of evidence was moderate or high for all treatments apart from lidocaine patches; tolerability and safety, and values and preferences were higher for topical drugs; and cost was lower for tricyclic antidepressants and tramadol. These findings permitted a strong recommendation for use and proposal as first-line treatment in neuropathic pain for tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors, pregabalin, and gabapentin; a weak recommendation for use and proposal as second line for lidocaine patches, capsaicin high-concentration patches, and tramadol; and a weak recommendation for use and proposal as third line for strong opioids and botulinum toxin A. Topical agents and botulinum toxin A are recommended for peripheral neuropathic pain only., Interpretation: Our results support a revision of the NeuPSIG recommendations for the pharmacotherapy of neuropathic pain. Inadequate response to drug treatments constitutes a substantial unmet need in patients with neuropathic pain. Modest efficacy, large placebo responses, heterogeneous diagnostic criteria, and poor phenotypic profiling probably account for moderate trial outcomes and should be taken into account in future studies., Funding: NeuPSIG of the International Association for the Study of Pain., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The objective of these studies was to assess the efficacy and safety of pregabalin in the treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-associated neuropathic pain. Patients with HIV-associated distal sensory polyneuropathy (DSP) were randomized to treatment with flexible-dose pregabalin (150-600 mg/day) or placebo for 17 weeks in a single-blind, placebo lead-in, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled multinational trial. The primary efficacy outcome was the change in mean pain score on an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS) from baseline to study endpoint. Participants who completed this trial were invited to participate in a 6-month open-label extension study with pregabalin. Of the 377 patients enrolled in the randomized controlled trial (pregabalin, n=183; placebo, n=194), 68.4% completed treatment. In the open-label extension, 217 patients were treated and 59.4% completed treatment. Both studies were terminated by the sponsor after a preplanned interim analysis indicated trial futility. At endpoint, the change from baseline in least-squares mean NRS pain scores in the intent-to-treat population was -2.04 for pregabalin versus -2.11 for placebo (P=.709). There were no significant differences between the pregabalin and placebo groups in the secondary efficacy measures. Incidence of adverse events was lower than seen in previous pregabalin studies. Overall, this trial did not show pregabalin to be more efficacious than placebo in treating HIV-associated DSP. Studies such as these, which fail to support their primary hypotheses, may be important in informing the methodology of future trials, especially when novel approaches to limit variability in the control group are included. ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT01049217 and NCT01145417., (Copyright © 2014 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: This review is an update of a review published in 2011, itself a major update of previous reviews published in 2005 and 2000, investigating the effects of gabapentin in chronic neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage). Antiepileptic drugs are used to manage chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia., Objectives: To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of gabapentin in chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia., Search Methods: We identified randomised trials of gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia by searching the databases MEDLINE (1966 to March 2014), EMBASE (1980 to 2014 week 10), and CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library (Issue 3 of 12, 2014). We obtained clinical trial reports and synopses of published and unpublished studies from Internet sources, and searched Clinicaltrials.gov. Searches were run originally in 2011 and the date of the most recent search was 17 March 2014., Selection Criteria: Randomised, double-blind studies reporting the analgesic and adverse effects of gabapentin in neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia with assessment of pain intensity, pain relief, or both, using validated scales. Participants were adults., Data Collection and Analysis: Three review authors independently extracted efficacy and adverse event data, examined issues of study quality, and assessed risk of bias. We performed analysis using three tiers of evidence. First tier evidence derived from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction, intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for dropouts; at least 200 participants in the comparison, 8 to 12 weeks duration, parallel design), second tier from data that failed to meet one or more of these criteria and were considered at some risk of bias but with adequate numbers in the comparison, and third tier from data involving small numbers of participants that were considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both.For efficacy, we calculated the number needed to treat to benefit (NNT), concentrating on at least 50% pain intensity reduction, and Initiative on Methods, Measurement and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) definitions of at least moderate and substantial benefit. For harm we calculated number needed to treat for harm (NNH) for adverse effects and withdrawal. Meta-analysis was undertaken using a fixed-effect model. We emphasised differences between conditions now defined as neuropathic pain, and other conditions like masticatory pain, complex regional painsyndrome type 1 (CRPS-1), and fibromyalgia., Main Results: Seven new studies with 1919 participants were added. Another report (147 participants) provided results for a study already included, but which previously had no usable data. A further report (170 participants) used an experimental formulation of intrathecal gabapentin. Thirty-seven studies (5633 participants) studied oral gabapentin at daily doses of 1200 mg or more in 12 chronic pain conditions; 84% of participants were in studies of postherpetic neuralgia, painful diabetic neuropathy or mixed neuropathic pain. There was no first tier evidence.Second tier evidence for the outcome of at least 50% pain intensity reduction, considered valuable by patients with chronic pain, showed that gabapentin was significantly better than placebo in postherpetic neuralgia (34% gabapentin versus 21% placebo; NNT 8.0, 95% CI 6.0 to 12) and painful diabetic neuropathy (38% versus 21%, NNT 5.9, 95% CI 4.6 to 8.3). There was insufficient information in other pain conditions to reach any reliable conclusion. There was no obvious difference between standard gabapentin formulations and recently-introduced extended-release or gastro-retentive formulations, or between different doses of gabapentin.Adverse events occurred significantly more often with gabapentin. Persons taking gabapentin could expect to have at least one adverse event (62%), withdraw because of an adverse event (11%), suffer dizziness (19%), somnolence (14%), peripheral oedema (7%), and gait disturbance (9%). Serious adverse events (3%) were no more common than with placebo.There were insufficient data for direct comparisons with other active treatments, and only third tier evidence for other painful conditions., Authors' Conclusions: There was no top tier evidence that was unequivocally unbiased. Second tier evidence, with potentially important residual biases, showed that gabapentin at doses of 1200 mg or more was effective for some people with some painful neuropathic pain conditions. The outcome of at least 50% pain intensity reduction is regarded as a useful outcome of treatment by patients, and the achievement of this degree of pain relief is associated with important beneficial effects on sleep interference, fatigue, and depression, as well as quality of life, function, and work. About 35% achieved this degree of pain relief with gabapentin, compared with 21% for placebo. Over half of those treated with gabapentin will not have worthwhile pain relief. Results might vary between different neuropathic pain conditions, and the amount of evidence for gabapentin in neuropathic pain conditions except postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy, and in fibromyalgia, is very limited.The levels of efficacy found for gabapentin are consistent with those found for other drug therapies in postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy.

Individuals infected with the HIV and taking certain antiretroviral drugs to suppress viral replication have a high prevalence of neuropathic pain that is not alleviated by analgesic/adjuvant drugs that are often efficacious for the relief of other types of neuropathic pain. There is therefore a great need for new analgesics to alleviate the pain of antiretroviral toxic neuropathy (ATN). Small-molecule angiotensin II type 2 receptor (AT2R) antagonists, with ≥1000-fold selectivity over the angiotensin II type 1 receptor, produced analgesia in the chronic constriction injury of the sciatic nerve rat model of peripheral nerve trauma. Hence, the present study was designed to assess their analgesic efficacy in a rat model of ATN. The analgesic efficacy of small-molecule AT2R antagonists (EMA200 and EMA300) was assessed in a rat model of dideoxycytidine (ddC)-induced ATN. Single intraperitoneal bolus doses of EMA200 (0.3-10 mg/kg) induced dose-dependent analgesia in ddC-rats; the mean ED50 was 3.2 mg/kg. Twice-daily intraperitoneal administration of EMA300 at 30 mg/kg to ddC-rats for 3 days produced significant analgesia on days 2 and 3 of the treatment period. Therefore, small-molecule AT2R antagonists should be investigated further as novel analgesics for the relief of ATN.

VGF (nonacronymic) is a neuropeptide precursor that plays multiple roles in regulation of energy balance, reproduction, hippocampal synaptic plasticity, and pain. Data from a number of pain models showed significant up-regulation of VGF in sensory neurons. TLQP-21, one of the VGF-derived neuropeptides, has been shown to induce a hyperalgesic response when injected subcutaneously into the hind paw of mice. However, the precise role of VGF-derived neuropeptides in neuropathic pain and the molecular identity of the receptor for VGF-derived peptides are yet to be investigated. Here we identified gC1qR, the globular heads of the C1q receptor, as the receptor for TLQP-21 using chemical cross-linking combined with mass spectrometry analysis. TLQP-21 caused an increase in intracellular Ca(2+) levels in rat macrophages and microglia. Inoculation of TLQP-21-stimulated macrophages into rat hind paw caused mechanical hypersensitivity. The increase in intracellular Ca(2+) levels in macrophages was attenuated by either siRNA or neutralizing antibodies against gC1qR. Furthermore, application of the gC1qR-neutralizing antibody to rats with partial sciatic nerve ligation resulted in a delayed onset of nerve injury-associated mechanical hypersensitivity. These results indicate that gC1qR is the receptor for TLQP-21 and plays an important role in chronic pain through activation of macrophages. Because direct association between TLQP-21 and gC1qR is required for activation of macrophages and causes hypersensitivity, disrupting this interaction may be a useful new approach to develop novel analgesics.

Background: Antiepileptic drugs have been used for treating different types of neuropathic pain, and sometimes fibromyalgia. Our understanding of quality standards in chronic pain trials has improved to include new sources of potential bias. Individual Cochrane reviews using these new standards have assessed individual antiepileptic drugs. An early review from this group, originally published in 1998, was titled 'Anticonvulsants for acute and chronic pain'. This overview now covers the neuropathic pain aspect of that original review, which was withdrawn in 2009., Objectives: To provide an overview of the relative analgesic efficacy of antiepileptic drugs that have been compared with placebo in neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia, and to report on adverse events associated with their use., Methods: We included reviews published in theCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews up to August 2013 (Issue 7). We extracted information from each review on measures of efficacy and harm, and methodological details concerning the number of participants, the duration of studies, and the imputation methods used, in order to judge potential biases in available data.We analysed efficacy data for each painful condition in three tiers, according to outcome and freedom from known sources of bias. The first tier met current best standards - at least 50% pain intensity reduction over baseline (or its equivalent), without the use of last observation carried forward (LOCF) for dropouts, an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, in parallel group studies with at least 200 participants lasting eight weeks or more. The second tier used data from at least 200 participants where one or more of the above conditions were not met. The third tier of evidence related to data from fewer than 200 participants, or with several important methodological problems that limited interpretation., Main Results: No studies reported top tier results.For gabapentin and pregabalin only we found reasonably good second tier evidence for efficacy in painful diabetic neuropathy and postherpetic neuralgia. In addition, for pregabalin, we found evidence of efficacy in central neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia. Point estimates of numbers needed to treat for an additional beneficial effect (NNTs) were in the range of 4 to 10 for the important outcome of pain intensity reduction over baseline of 50% or more.For other antiepileptic drugs there was no evidence (clonazepam, phenytoin), so little evidence that no sensible judgement could be made about efficacy (valproic acid), low quality evidence likely to be subject to a number of biases overestimating efficacy (carbamazepine), or reasonable quality evidence indicating little or no effect (lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine, topiramate). Lacosamide recorded such a trivial statistical superiority over placebo that it was unreliable to conclude that it had any efficacy where there was possible substantial bias.Any benefits of treatment came with a high risk of adverse events and withdrawal because of adverse events, but serious adverse events were not significantly raised, except with oxcarbazepine., Authors' Conclusions: Clinical trial evidence supported the use of only gabapentin and pregabalin in some neuropathic pain conditions (painful diabetic neuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, and central neuropathic pain) and fibromyalgia. Only a minority of people achieved acceptably good pain relief with either drug, but it is known that quality of life and function improved markedly with the outcome of at least 50% pain intensity reduction. For other antiepileptic drugs there was no evidence, insufficient evidence, or evidence of a lack of effect; this included carbamazepine. Evidence from clinical practice and experience is that some patients can achieve good results with antiepileptics other than gabapentin or pregabalin.There is no firm evidence to answer the important pragmatic questions about which patients should have which drug, and in which order the drugs should be used. There is a clinical effectiveness research agenda to provide evidence about strategies rather than interventions, to produce the overall best results in a population, in the shortest time, and at the lowest cost to healthcare providers.

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., (Copyright © 2013 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

HIV-associated sensory neuropathy is the most frequent manifestation of HIV disease, afflicting 40-50% of patients whose HIV disease is otherwise controlled by antiretroviral therapy. It often presents with significant neuropathic pain and is consistently associated with previous exposure to nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors including stavudine (d4T), which is widely used in resource-limited settings. Here we investigated complex pain-related behaviours associated with d4T treatment using ethologically relevant thigmotaxis and burrowing behaviours in adult rats. Detailed neuropathological response was also examined using neurochemistry, electron microscopy, and proteomics. After 2 intravenous injections of d4T (50 mg/kg, 4 days apart), rats developed hind paw mechanical hypersensitivity, which plateaued at 21 days after initial d4T injection, a time that these animals also had significant changes in thigmotaxis and burrowing behaviours when compared to the controls; reductions in hind paw intraepidermal nerve fibre density and CGRP/IB4 immunoreactivity in L5 spinal dorsal horn, suggesting injury to both the peripheral and central terminals of L5 dorsal root ganglion neurons; and increases in myelinated and unmyelinated axon diameters in the sural nerve, suggesting axonal swelling. However, no significant glial and inflammatory cell response to d4T treatment was observed. Sural nerve proteomics at 7 days after initial d4T injection revealed down-regulated proteins associated with mitochondrial function, highlighting distal axons vulnerability to d4T neurotoxicity. In summary, we have reported complex behavioural changes and a distinctive neuropathology in a clinically relevant rat model of d4T-induced sensory neuropathy that is suitable for further pathophysiological investigation and preclinical evaluation of novel analgesics., (Copyright © 2013 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Topical creams with capsaicin are used to treat peripheral neuropathic pain. Following application to the skin capsaicin causes enhanced sensitivity, followed by a period with reduced sensitivity and, after repeated applications, persistent desensitisation. High-concentration (8%) capsaicin patches were developed to increase the amount of capsaicin delivered; rapid delivery was thought to improve tolerability because cutaneous nociceptors are 'defunctionalised' quickly. The single application avoids noncompliance. Only the 8% patch formulation of capsaicin is available, with a capsaicin concentration about 100 times greater than conventional creams.High-concentration topical capsaicin is given as a single patch application to the affected part. It must be applied under highly controlled conditions, normally under local anaesthetic, due to the initial intense burning sensation it causes. The benefits are expected to last for about 12 weeks, when another application might be made., Objectives: To review the evidence from controlled trials on the efficacy and tolerability of topically applied, high-concentration (8%) capsaicin in chronic neuropathic pain in adults., Search Methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and clinicaltrials.gov to December 2012., Selection Criteria: Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of at least six weeks' duration, using topical capsaicin to treat neuropathic pain., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and validity, and extracted data on numbers of participants with pain relief (clinical improvement) after at least six weeks, and with local skin reactions. We calculated risk ratio and numbers needed to treat to benefit (NNT) and harm (NNH). We sought details of definition of pain relief and specific adverse events.Efficacy outcomes reflecting long-duration pain relief after a single drug application were from the patient global impression of change (PGIC) at specific points, usually eight and 12 weeks. We regarded these outcomes as first-tier evidence. We regarded average pain scores over weeks 2 to 8 and 2 to 12 and the number and/or percentage of participants with pain intensity reduction of at least 30% or at least 50% over baseline as second-tier evidence., Main Results: We included six studies, involving 2073 participants; they were of generally good reporting quality; the control was 0.04% topical capsaicin to help maintain blinding. Efficacy outcomes were inconsistently reported between studies, however, resulting in analyses for most outcomes being based on less than complete data.Four studies involved 1272 participants with postherpetic neuralgia. All efficacy outcomes were significantly better than control. At both eight and 12 weeks there was a significant benefit for high-concentration over low-concentration topical capsaicin for participants reporting themselves to be much or very much better, with point estimates of the NNTs of 8.8 (95% confidence interval (CI) 5.3 to 26) and 7.0 (95% CI 4.6 to 15) respectively. More participants had average 2 to 8-week and 2 to 12-week pain intensity reductions over baseline of at least 30% and at least 50% with active treatment than control, with NNT values between 10 and 12.Two studies involved 801 participants with painful HIV-neuropathy. In a single study the NNT at 12 weeks for participants to be much or very much better was 5.8 (95% CI 3.8 to 12). Over both studies more participants had average 2 to 12-week pain intensity reductions over baseline of at least 30% with active treatment than control, with an NNT of 11.Local adverse events were common, but not consistently reported. Serious adverse events were no more common with active treatment (4.1%) than control (3.2%). Adverse event withdrawals did not differ between groups, but lack of efficacy withdrawals were somewhat more common with control than active treatment, based on small numbers of events. No deaths were judged to be related to study medication., Authors' Conclusions: High-concentration topical capsaicin used to treat postherpetic neuralgia and HIV-neuropathy generates more participants with high levels of pain relief than does control treatment using a much lower concentration of capsaicin. The additional proportion who benefit over control is not large, but for those who do obtain high levels of pain relief there are additional improvements in sleep, fatigue, depression and an improved quality of life. High-concentration topical capsaicin is therefore similar to other therapies for chronic pain. In this case, the high cost of single and repeated applications suggest that high-concentration topical capsaicin is likely to be used when other available therapies have failed, and that it should probably not be used repeatedly without substantial documented pain relief. Even when efficacy is established, there are unknown risks, especially on epidermal innervation, of repeated application of long periods.

Pain can be a significant problem for treated leprosy patients. It can be nociceptive due to tissue inflammation occurring during episodes of immune mediated reactions, or neuropathic due to leprosy affecting the somatosensory system. There are sparse epidemiological data on the prevalence and impact of neuropathic pain in treated leprosy patients. Tools for assessing neuropathic pain have not been validated in leprosy. We have examined nature of pain in a cross-sectional study to determine the prevalence of neuropathic pain (NP) in 80 recently treated leprosy patients in Ethiopia. Pain and depression were evaluated using the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) and the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) questionnaire. The Douleur Neuropathique en 4 Questions (DN4) and the Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (LANSS) were used as screening tools for NP. Pain of any type was experienced by 60% of the patients. Pure nociceptive pain was experienced by 43%, pure NP by 11%, and mixed pain by 6%. Of the 14 patients who had NP either alone or in combination with nociceptive pain, 12 had high GHQ-12 scores, indicating possible depression. The DN4 had sensitivity and specificity of 100% and 45%, whereas the LANSS had 85% and 42%, respectively. This is the first study to differentiate nociceptive from NP in leprosy patients. The prevalence of NP is high in recently treated Ethiopian leprosy patients. We have validated the use of DN4 in leprosy and it is easier to use than LANSS. Depression is a common co-morbidity in patients with NP. The high prevalence and morbidity of NP in treated leprosy patients warrant clinical trials to assess the efficacy of pain therapies for leprosy-associated NP., (Copyright © 2012 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)