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review of randomised double-blind studies of oral and topical pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain, including unpublished trials (retrieved from clinicaltrials.gov and pharmaceutical websites).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

Pain usually results from activation of nociceptive afferents by actually or potentially tissue-damaging stimuli. Pain may also arise by activity generated within the nervous system without adequate stimulation of its peripheral sensory endings. For this type of pain, the International Association for the Study of Pain introduced the term neuropathic pain, defined as "pain initiated or caused by a primary lesion or dysfunction in the nervous system." While this definition has been useful in distinguishing some characteristics of neuropathic and nociceptive types of pain, it lacks defined boundaries. Since the sensitivity of the nociceptive system is modulated by its adequate activation (e.g., by central sensitization), it has been difficult to distinguish neuropathic dysfunction from physiologic neuroplasticity. We present a more precise definition developed by a group of experts from the neurologic and pain community: pain arising as a direct consequence of a lesion or disease affecting the somatosensory system. This revised definition fits into the nosology of neurologic disorders. The reference to the somatosensory system was derived from a wide range of neuropathic pain conditions ranging from painful neuropathy to central poststroke pain. Because of the lack of a specific diagnostic tool for neuropathic pain, a grading system of definite, probable, and possible neuropathic pain is proposed. The grade possible can only be regarded as a working hypothesis, which does not exclude but does not diagnose neuropathic pain. The grades probable and definite require confirmatory evidence from a neurologic examination. This grading system is proposed for clinical and research purposes.

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

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.