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review of randomised double-blind studies of oral and topical pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain, including unpublished trials (retrieved from clinicaltrials.gov and pharmaceutical websites).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.

Few studies have directly compared the clinical features of neuropathic and non-neuropathic pains. For this purpose, the French Neuropathic Pain Group developed a clinician-administered questionnaire named DN4 consisting of both sensory descriptors and signs related to bedside sensory examination. This questionnaire was used in a prospective study of 160 patients presenting with pain associated with a definite neurological or somatic lesion. The most common aetiologies of nervous lesions (n=89) were traumatic nerve injury, post herpetic neuralgia and post stroke pain. Non-neurological lesions (n=71) were represented by osteoarthritis, inflammatory arthropathies and mechanical low back pain. Each patient was seen independently by two experts in order to confirm the diagnosis of neuropathic or non-neuropathic pain. The prevalence of pain descriptors and sensory dysfunctions were systematically compared in the two groups of patients. The analysis of the psychometric properties of the DN4 questionnaire included: face validity, inter-rater reliability, factor analysis and logistic regression to identify the discriminant properties of items or combinations of items for the diagnosis of neuropathic pain. We found that a relatively small number of items are sufficient to discriminate neuropathic pain. The 10-item questionnaire developed in the present study constitutes a new diagnostic instrument, which might be helpful both in clinical research and daily practice.

Neuropathic pain is caused by a lesion or disease of the somatosensory system, including peripheral fibres (Aβ, Aδ and C fibres) and central neurons, and affects 7–10% of the general population. Multiple causes of neuropathic pain have been described and its incidence is likely to increase owing to the ageing global population, increased incidence of diabetes mellitus and improved survival from cancer after chemotherapy. Indeed, imbalances between excitatory and inhibitory somatosensory signalling, alterations in ion channels and variability in the way that pain messages are modulated in the central nervous system all have been implicated in neuropathic pain. The burden of chronic neuropathic pain seems to be related to the complexity of neuropathic symptoms, poor outcomes and difficult treatment decisions. Importantly, quality of life is impaired in patients with neuropathic pain owing to increased drug prescriptions and visits to health care providers, as well as the morbidity from the pain itself and the inciting disease. Despite challenges, progress in the understanding of the pathophysiology of neuropathic pain is spurring the development of new diagnostic procedures and personalized interventions, which emphasize the need for a multidisciplinary approach to the management of neuropathic pain.

Background and objectives: This second European Federation of Neurological Societies Task Force aimed at updating the existing evidence about the pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain since 2005. Methods: Studies were identified using the Cochrane Database and Medline. Trials were classified according to the aetiological condition. All class I and II randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were assessed; lower class studies were considered only in conditions that had no top-level studies. Treatments administered using repeated or single administrations were considered, provided they are feasible in an outpatient setting. Results: Most large RCTs included patients with diabetic polyneuropathies and postherpetic neuralgia, while an increasing number of smaller studies explored other conditions. Drugs generally have similar efficacy in various conditions, except in trigeminal neuralgia, chronic radiculopathy and HIV neuropathy, with level A evidence in support of tricyclic antidepressants (TCA), pregabalin, gabapentin, tramadol and opioids (in various conditions), duloxetine, venlafaxine, topical lidocaine and capsaicin patches (in restricted conditions). Combination therapy appears useful for TCAgabapentin and gabapentin-opioids (level A). Conclusions: There are still too few large-scale comparative studies. For future trials, we recommend to assess comorbidities, quality of life, symptoms and signs with standardized tools and attempt to better define responder profiles to specific drug treatments. Background and objectives

et al. JAMA 2015;313:1133-42.Conclusions: Regular aspirin and/or NSAID use is associated with a lower risk of colorectal cancer and is tied to specific genetic variants.Summary: There is data that suggests that the use of aspirin and other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is associated with a lower risk of colorectal neoplasms. (Chan AT, JAMA 2005; 294:914-923 and Friis S et al, Cancer Causes Control 2009; 20:731-740 and Rothwell PM et al, Lancet 2010; 376:1741-1750 Since virtually all vascular surgical patients are treated with aspirin or other antiplatelet agents with potential anti-inflammatory actions, the association of decreased colorectal cancer risks in such patients is of potential interest to those treating vascular surgical patients. The mechanisms, however, behind the association are not well understood. Chemo prevention of cancer is not currently recommended because of the uncertainty of risk benefit profile. The authors sought to identify genetic markers that characterize individuals who may obtain differential benefit from aspirin and NSAIDs. They conducted a discover-based, genome-wide analysis of gene X environment interactions between use of aspirin, NSAIDs or both and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in relation to risk of colorectal cancer. This was a case controlled study using data from 5 case-control and 5 cohort studies initiated between 1976 and 2003 across the United States, Canada, Australia and Germany including colorectal cancer cases (N ¼ 8634) and matched controls (N ¼ 8553), ascertained between 1976 and 2011. All participants were of European descent. Overall regular use of aspirin and/or NSAIDs was associated with a lower risk of colorectal cancer (prevalence, 28% vs 38%; odd ratio [OR], 0.69 [95% CI, 0.64-0.74]; P ¼ 6.2 x 10 À28 ) compared with nonregular use. In the conventional logistic regression analysis, the SNP rs2965667 at chromosome 12p12.3 near the MGST1 gene showed a genome-wide significant interaction with aspirin and/or NSAID use (P ¼ 4.6 x 10 À9 for interaction). Aspirin and/or NSAID use was associated with a lower risk of colorectal cancer among individuals with re2965667-TT genotype (prevalence, 28% vs 38% OR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.61-0.70]; P ¼ 7.7 x 10 À33 ) but with a higher rate risk among those with rare TA or AA genotypes (prevalence, 35% vs 29%; OR, 1.89 [95% CI, 1.27-2.81]; P ¼ .002). In case-only interaction analysis, the SNP re 16973225 at chromosome 15q25.2 near the IL16 gene showed a genome-wide significant interaction with use of aspirin and/or NSAIDs (P ¼ 8.2 x 10 À9 for interaction). Regular use was associated with a lower risk of colorectal cancer among individuals with rs16973225-AA genotype (prevalence, 28% vs 38%; OR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.62-0.71]; P¼1.9 x 10 À30 ) but was not associated with risk of colorectal cancer among those with less common (9%) AC or CC genotypes (prevalence, 36% vs 39%; OR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.78-1.20]; P ¼ .76).

This large national population-based study indicates that a significant proportion of chronic pain patients report neuropathic characteristics. We identified distinctive sociodemographic profile and clinical features indicating that chronic pain with neuropathic characteristics is a specific health problem.

This study describes the development and validation of the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI), a new self-questionnaire specifically designed to evaluate the different symptoms of neuropathic pain. Following a development phase and a pilot study, we generated a list of descriptors reflecting spontaneous ongoing or paroxysmal pain, evoked pain (i.e. mechanical and thermal allodynia/hyperalgesia) and dysesthesia/paresthesia. Each of these items was quantified on a (0-10) numerical scale. The validation procedure was performed in 176 consecutive patients with neuropathic pain of peripheral (n = 120) or central (n = 56) origin, recruited in five pain centers in France and Belgium. It included: (i) assessment of the test-retest reliability of each item, (ii) determination of the factorial structure of the questionnaire and analysis of convergent and divergent validities (i.e. construct validity), and (iii) evaluation of the ability of the NPSI to detect the effects of treatment (i.e. sensitivity to change). The final version of the NPSI includes 10 descriptors (plus two temporal items) that allow discrimination and quantification of five distinct clinically relevant dimensions of neuropathic pain syndromes and that are sensitive to treatment. The psychometric properties of the NPSI suggest that it might be used to characterize subgroups of neuropathic pain patients and verify whether they respond differentially to various pharmacological agents or other therapeutic interventions.

This is a revision of guidelines, originally published in 2004, for the assessment of patients with neuropathic pain. Neuropathic pain is defined as pain arising as a direct consequence of a lesion or disease affecting the somatosensory system either at peripheral or central level. Screening questionnaires are suitable for identifying potential patients with neuropathic pain, but further validation of them is needed for epidemiological purposes. Clinical examination, including accurate sensory examination, is the basis of neuropathic pain diagnosis. For more accurate sensory profiling, quantitative sensory testing is recommended for selected cases in clinic, including the diagnosis of small fiber neuropathies and for research purposes. Measurement of trigeminal reflexes mediated by A-beta fibers can be used to differentiate symptomatic trigeminal neuralgia from classical trigeminal neuralgia. Measurement of laser-evoked potentials is useful for assessing function of the A-delta fiber pathways in patients with neuropathic pain. Functional brain imaging is not currently useful for individual patients in clinical practice, but is an interesting research tool. Skin biopsy to measure the intraepidermal nerve fiber density should be performed in patients with clinical signs of small fiber dysfunction. The intensity of pain and treatment effect (both in clinic and trials) should be assessed with numerical rating scale or visual analog scale. For future neuropathic pain trials, pain relief scales, patient and clinician global impression of change, the proportion of responders (50% and 30% pain relief), validated neuropathic pain quality measures and assessment of sleep, mood, functional capacity and quality of life are recommended.