The effective treatment of patients suffering from central neuropathic pain remains a clinical challenge, despite a standard pharmacological approach in combination with anticonvulsants and antidepressants. A randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial evaluated the effects of pregabalin on pain relief, tolerability, health status, and quality of life in patients with central neuropathic pain caused by brain or spinal cord injuries. At baseline and 4 weeks after the start of treatment subjects were evaluated with standard measures of efficacy: pain intensity measured by visual analog scale, health status (Pain Disability Index and EQ-5D) and quality of life (SF-36). Forty patients received escalating doses of either pregabalin (150, 300, and 600mg/day) or matching placebo capsules. In both groups, patients started with 1 capsule per day (either 150mg of pregabalin or placebo). If pain relief was insufficient, patients were titrated to a higher dose. There was a statistically significant decrease in mean pain score at endpoint for pregabalin treatment, compared with placebo (P=0.016). Follow-up observation showed no significant difference in Pain Disability Index scores between the two groups. The pregabalin group, however, showed a statistically significant improvement for the EQ-5D. Pregabalin treatment led to a significant improvement in the bodily pain domain of the SF36. In the other domains, more favorable scores were reported without reaching statistical significance. Pregabalin, in a flexible-dose regime, produced clinically significant reductions in pain, as well as improvements in health status in patients suffering from severe central neuropathic pain.

The mechanisms underlying central neuropathic pain are poorly understood. Pain inhibitory mechanisms including sertononergic and norepinephrine systems may be dysfunctional. In this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial we evaluated the effects of duloxetine on pain relief (spontaneous pain and evoked pain), tolerability, health status, and quality of life in patients with central pain related to cerebrovascular lesions or spinal cord lesions. At baseline and eight weeks following start of treatment subjects were evaluated with standard measures of efficacy: pain intensity (primary efficacy variable), quantitative sensory testing, health status and quality of life (secondary efficacy variables). Forty-eight patients received escalating doses of either duloxetine (60 and 120mg/day) or matching placebo capsules. In both groups, patients started with 1 capsule per day. If pain relief was insufficient, patients were titrated to a higher dose. A trend towards a decrease in mean pain score after eight weeks was observed for duloxetine treatment (p=0.056). Duloxetine alleviated dynamic (p=0.035) and cold allodynia (p<0.001) significantly better than placebo. Tactile pain and pressure pain thresholds did not improve significantly. The duloxetine group showed a significant improvement for the bodily pain domain of the SF36 (p=0.035). No significant differences were observed in the other domains of the SF36, the Pain Disability Index, and the EQ-5D. While this trial showed no significant effect on pain intensity, duloxetine revealed a biologic effect. It would be worthwhile to suspend our judgement and to perform more studies to evaluate the role of duloxetine in modulation of the symptoms of central neuropathic pain.

The authors conclude that repeated intrathecal administration of preservative-free S(+)-ketamine in a clinically relevant concentration and dosage has, considering the extent and severity of the lesions, a toxic effect on the central nervous system of rabbits.

Questions have been raised about the potential neurotoxicity of the neuraxial use of ketamine although ketamine and its active enantiomer S(+)-ketamine have been used intrathecally and epidurally (caudally) for the management of perioperative pain and in a variety of chronic pain syndromes. Clinical experience following neuraxial administration of S(+)-ketamine has been documented without reference to local central nervous system toxicity following this approach. In addition, there are no preclinical safety data regarding stability, compatibility, and neurotoxicity on intrathecal use of single S(+)-ketamine or combinations of S(+)-ketamine, morphine, bupivacaine, and clonidine. In the present case, the continuous intrathecal administration of S(+)-ketamine, in combination with morphine, bupivacaine, and clonidine resulted in adequate pain relief in a patient suffering from intractable neuropathic cancer pain. However, postmortem observation of the spinal cord and nerve roots revealed severe histological abnormalities including central chromatolysis, nerve cell shrinkage, neuronophagia, microglial upregulation, and gliosis. Based on our results, neuraxial administration of S (+)-ketamine cannot be recommended for clinical practise before a systematic study of toxicology of neuraxial S(+)-ketamine in animals or humans has been performed.