Summary Background Neuropathic pain is difficult to treat. New treatments, clinical trials and standards of quality for assessing evidence justify an update of evidence-based recommendations for its pharmacological treatment. Methods The Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group (NeuPSIG) of the International Association for the Study of Pain conducted a systematic review of randomised double-blind studies of oral and topical pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain, including unpublished trials (retrieved from clinicaltrials.gov and pharmaceutical websites). Meta-analysis used Numbers Needed to Treat (NNT) for 50 % pain relief as primary measure and assessed publication bias. Recommendations used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Findings In total 229 studies were included. Analysis of publication bias suggested a 10% overstatement of treatment effects. Studies published in peer-review journals reported greater effects than online studies (R2=9·3%, p<0·01). Trial outcomes were generally modest even for effective drugs : in particular NNTs were 3·6 (95 % CI 3·0–4·4) for tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), 6·4 (95 % CI 5·2–8·4) for serotonin- noradrenaline reuptake inbibitor (SNRI) antidepressants duloxetine and venlafaxine, 7·7 (95 % CI 6·5–9·4) for pregabalin and 6·3 (95 % CI 5·0–8·3) for gabapentin. NNTs were higher for gabapentin ER/enacarbil and capsaicin high concentration patches, lower for opioids and botulinum toxin A (BTX-A) and undetermined for lidocaine patches. Final quality of evidence was lower for lidocaine patches and BTX-A. Tolerability/safety and values/preferences were high for lidocaine patches and lower for opioids and TCAs. This permitted a strong GRADE recommendation for use and proposal as first line for TCAs, SNRIs, pregabalin, gabapentin and gabapentin ER/enacarbil in neuropathic pain, a weak recommendation for use and proposal as second line for lidocaine patches, capsaicin patches and tramadol, and a weak recommendations for use and proposal as third line for strong opioids (particularly oxycodone and morphine) and BTX-A. Data for cannabinoids, tapentadol, drug combinations, and several other antiepileptics, antidepressants and topical drugs were inconclusive. Interpretation Limited efficacy, large placebo responses, inadequate diagnostic criteria and poor phenotypic profiling probably account for modest trial outcomes and should be taken into account in future studies. Funding This study was funded by NeuPSIG.

SummaryBackgroundThe vascular and gastrointestinal effects of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including selective COX-2 inhibitors (coxibs) and traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (tNSAIDs), are not well characterised, particularly in patients at increased risk of vascular disease. We aimed to provide such information through meta-analyses of randomised trials.MethodsWe undertook meta-analyses of 280 trials of NSAIDs versus placebo (124 513 participants, 68 342 person-years) and 474 trials of one NSAID versus another NSAID (229 296 participants, 165 456 person-years). The main outcomes were major vascular events (non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or vascular death); major coronary events (non-fatal myocardial infarction or coronary death); stroke; mortality; heart failure; and upper gastrointestinal complications (perforation, obstruction, or bleed).FindingsMajor vascular events were increased by about a third by a coxib (rate ratio [RR] 1·37, 95% CI 1·14–1·66; p=0·0009) or diclofenac (1·41, 1·12–1·78; p=0·0036), chiefly due to an increase in major coronary events (coxibs 1·76, 1·31–2·37; p=0·0001; diclofenac 1·70, 1·19–2·41; p=0·0032). Ibuprofen also significantly increased major coronary events (2·22, 1·10–4·48; p=0·0253), but not major vascular events (1·44, 0·89–2·33). Compared with placebo, of 1000 patients allocated to a coxib or diclofenac for a year, three more had major vascular events, one of which was fatal. Naproxen did not significantly increase major vascular events (0·93, 0·69–1·27). Vascular death was increased significantly by coxibs (1·58, 99% CI 1·00–2·49; p=0·0103) and diclofenac (1·65, 0·95–2·85, p=0·0187), non-significantly by ibuprofen (1·90, 0·56–6·41; p=0·17), but not by naproxen (1·08, 0·48–2·47, p=0·80). The proportional effects on major vascular events were independent of baseline characteristics, including vascular risk. Heart failure risk was roughly doubled by all NSAIDs. All NSAID regimens increased upper gastrointestinal complications (coxibs 1·81, 1·17–2·81, p=0·0070; diclofenac 1·89, 1·16–3·09, p=0·0106; ibuprofen 3·97, 2·22–7·10, p<0·0001; and naproxen 4·22, 2·71–6·56, p<0·0001).InterpretationThe vascular risks of high-dose diclofenac, and possibly ibuprofen, are comparable to coxibs, whereas high-dose naproxen is associated with less vascular risk than other NSAIDs. Although NSAIDs increase vascular and gastrointestinal risks, the size of these risks can be predicted, which could help guide clinical decision making.FundingUK Medical Research Council and British Heart Foundation.

Objective-To determine effectiveness and adverse effects of anticonvulsant drugs in management ofpain.Design-Systematic review of randomised controlled trials ofanticonvulsants for acute, chronic, or cancer pain identified by using Medline, by hand searching, by searching reference lists, and by contacting investigators.Subjects-Between 1966 and February 1994, 37 reports were found; 20 reports, of four anticonvulsants, were eligible.Main outcome measures-Numbers needed to treat were calculated for effectiveness, adverse effects, and drug related withdrawal from study.

Most analgesic drugs work well but in only a small percentage of people. Andrew Moore and colleagues argue that we need to move away from a focus on average response and seek out what works for each patient

We have reviewed randomized controlled trials to assess the effectiveness and safety of anaesthetics which omitted nitrous oxide (N2O) to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Early and late PONV (6 and 48 h after operation, respectively), and adverse effects were evaluated using the numbers-needed-to-treat (NNT) method. In 24 reports with information on 2478 patients, the mean incidence of early and late vomiting with N2O (control) was 17% and 30%, respectively. Omitting N2O significantly reduced vomiting compared with a N2O regimen; the combined NNT to prevent both early and late vomiting with a N2O-free regimen was about 13 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 9, 30). The magnitude of the effect depended on the incidence of vomiting in controls. In studies with a baseline risk higher than the mean of all reports, the NNT to prevent both early and late vomiting with a N2O-free anaesthetic was 5 (95% CI 4, 10). When the baseline risk was lower than the mean, omitting N2O did not improve outcome. Omitting N2O had no effect on complete control of emesis or nausea. The NNT for intraoperative awareness with a N2O-free anaesthetic was 46 compared with anaesthetics where N2O was used. This clinically important risk of major harm reduces the usefulness of omitting N2O to prevent postoperative emesis.

The analgesic effectiveness and safety of oral tramadol were compared with standard analgesics using a meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomised controlled trials in patients with moderate or severe pain after surgery or dental extraction. Calculation of %maxTOTPAR from individual patient data, and the use of > 50%maxTOTPAR defined clinically acceptable pain relief. Number-needed-to-treat (NNT) for one patient to have > 50%maxTOTPAR compared with placebo was used to examine the effectiveness of different single oral doses of tramadol and comparator drugs. Eighteen randomised, double-blind, parallel-group single-dose trials with 3453 patients using categorical pain relief scales allowed the calculation of %maxTOTPAR. The use of > 50%maxTOTPAR was a sensitive measure to discriminate between analgesics. Tramadol and comparator drugs gave significantly more analgesia than placebo. In postsurgical pain tramadol 50, 100 and 150 mg had NNTs for > 50%maxTOTPAR of 7.1 (95% confidence intervals 4.6-18), 4.8 (3.4-8.2) and 2.4 (2.0-3.1), comparable with aspirin 650 mg plus codeine 60 mg (NNT 3.6 (2.5-6.3)) and acetaminophen 650 mg plus propoxyphene 100 mg (NNT 4.0 (3.0-5.7)). With the same dose of drug postsurgical patients had more pain relief than those having dental surgery. Tramadol showed a dose-response for analgesia in both postsurgical and dental pain patients. With the same dose of drug postsurgical pain patients had fewer adverse events than those having dental surgery. Adverse events (headache, nausea, vomiting, dizziness, somnolence) with tramadol 50 mg and 100 mg had a similar incidence to comparator drugs. There was a dose response with tramadol, tending towards higher incidences at higher doses. Single-patient meta-analysis using more than half pain relief provides a sensitive description of the analgesic properties of a drug, and NNT calculations allow comparisons to be made with standard analgesics. Absolute ranking of analgesic performance should be done separately for postsurgical and dental pain.

Presentation of relative effects regarding pain will facilitate interpretation of treatment effects.

A database of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in pain research published from 1950 to 1990 was created following an extensive literature search. By applying a refined MEDLINE search strategy from 1966 to 1990 and by hand-searching more than 1,000,000 pages of a total of 40 biomedical journals published during the period 1950-1990, more than 8000 RCTs were identified. The RCTs were published in more than 800 journals and over 85% appeared between 1976 and 1990. If the trend of the last 15 years persists, a total of more than 15 000 RCTs will be published in pain relief by the year 2000. A detailed description of methods to ensure efficient use of resources during the identification, retrieval and management of the information in pain relief and other fields is given. Emphasis is made on the importance of refining MEDLINE search strategies, on the use of volunteers to hand-search journals and on careful monitoring of each of the steps of the process. The potential uses of the database to guide clinical and research decisions are discussed.