Pharmacotherapy and non-invasive neuromodulation for neuropathic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: There remains a substantial unmet need for effective and safe treatments for neuropathic pain. The Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group aimed to update treatment recommendations, published in 2015, on the basis of new evidence from randomised controlled trials, emerging neuromodulation techniques, and advances in evidence synthesis. METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched Embase, PubMed, the International Clinical Trials Registry, and ClinicalTrials.gov from data inception for neuromodulation trials and from Jan 1, 2013, for pharmacological interventions until Feb 12, 2024. We included double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trials that evaluated pharmacological and neuromodulation treatments administered for at least 3 weeks, or if there was at least 3 weeks of follow-up, and which included at least ten participants per group. Trials included participants of any age with neuropathic pain, defined by the International Association for the Study of Pain. We excluded trials with enriched enrolment randomised withdrawal designs and those with participants with mixed aetiologies (ie, neuropathic and non-neuropathic pain) and conditions such as complex regional pain syndrome, low back pain without radicular pain, fibromyalgia, and idiopathic orofacial pain. We extracted summary data in duplicate from published reports, with discrepancies reconciled by a third independent reviewer on the platform Covidence. The primary efficacy outcome was the proportion of responders (50% or 30% reduction in baseline pain intensity or moderate pain relief). The primary safety outcome was the number of participants who withdrew from the treatment owing to adverse events. We calculated a risk difference for each comparison and did a random-effects meta-analysis. Risk differences were used to calculate the number needed to treat (NNT) and the number needed to harm (NNH) for each treatment. Risk of bias was assessed by use of the Cochrane risk of bias tool 2 and certainty of evidence assessed by use of GRADE. Recommendations were based on evidence of efficacy, adverse events, accessibility, and cost, and feedback from engaged lived experience partners. This study is registered on PROSPERO, CRD42023389375. FINDINGS: We identified 313 trials (284 pharmacological and 29 neuromodulation studies) for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Across all studies, 48 789 adult participants were randomly assigned to trial groups (20 611 female and 25 078 male participants, where sex was reported). Estimates for the primary efficacy and safety outcomes were tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) NNT=4·6 (95% CI 3·2-7·7), NNH=17·1 (11·4-33·6; moderate certainty of evidence), α2δ-ligands NNT=8·9 (7·4-11·10), NNH=26·2 (20·4-36·5; moderate certainty of evidence), serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) NNT=7·4 (5·6-10·9), NNH=13·9 (10·9-19·0; moderate certainty of evidence), botulinum toxin (BTX-A) NNT=2·7 (1·8-9·61), NNH=216·3 (23·5-∞; moderate certainty of evidence), capsaicin 8% patches NNT=13·2 (7·6-50·8), NNH=1129·3 (135·7-∞; moderate certainty of evidence), opioids NNT=5·9 (4·1-10·7), NNH=15·4 (10·8-24·0; low certainty of evidence), repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) NNT=4·2 (2·3-28·3), NNH=651·6 (34·7-∞; low certainty of evidence), capsaicin cream NNT=6·1 (3·1-∞), NNH=18·6 (10·6-77·1; very low certainty of evidence), lidocaine 5% plasters NNT=14·5 (7·8-108·2), NNH=178·0 (23·9-∞; very low certainty of evidence). The findings provided the basis for a strong recommendation for use of TCAs, α2δ-ligands, and SNRIs as first-line treatments; a weak recommendation for capsaicin 8% patches, capsaicin cream, and lidocaine 5% plasters as second-line recommendation; and a weak recommendation for BTX-A, rTMS, and opioids as third-line treatments for neuropathic pain. INTERPRETATION: Our results support a revision of the Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group recommendations for the treatment of neuropathic pain. Treatment outcomes are modest and for some treatments uncertainty remains. Further large placebo-controlled or sham-controlled trials done over clinically relevant timeframes are needed. FUNDING: NeuPSIG and ERA-NET Neuron.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,018 | 0,036 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,023 | 0,042 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,008 | 0,010 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».