scholarly journals Combination Therapy for Neuropathic Pain: A Review of Recent Evidence

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (16) ◽  
pp. 3533
Author(s):  
Ancor Serrano Afonso ◽  
Thiago Carnaval ◽  
Sebastià Videla Cés

Pharmacological treatment is not very effective for neuropathic pain (NP). A progressive decrease in the estimated effect of NP drugs has been reported, giving rise to an increase in the use of the multimodal analgesic approach. We performed a new independent review to assess whether more and better-quality evidence has become available since the last systematic review. We evaluated the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of double-blinded randomized controlled trials involving only adult participants and comparing combination therapy (CT: ≥2 drugs) with a placebo and/or at least one other comparator with an NP indication. The primary outcome assessed was the proportion of participants reporting ≥50% pain reductions from baseline. The secondary outcome assessed was the proportion of drop-outs due to treatment-emergent adverse events. After removing duplicates, 2323 citations were screened, with 164 articles assessed for eligibility, from which 16 were included for qualitative analysis. From the latter, only five lasted for at least 12 weeks and only six complied with the required data for complete analysis. CT has been adopted for years without robust evidence. Efforts have been made to achieve better-quality evidence, but the quality has not improved over the years. In this regard, guidelines for NP should attempt to make recommendations about CT research, prioritizing which combinations to analyze.

Author(s):  
Ancor Serrano Afonso ◽  
Thiago Carnaval ◽  
Sebastiá Videla Cés

Pharmacological treatment is not very effective for neuropathic pain (NP). A progressive decrease in the estimated effect of NP drugs has been reported, giving rise to an increase in the use of the multimodal analgesic approach. We performed a new, independent review to assess whether more evidence and of better-quality has become available since the last systematic review. We evaluated the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of double-blinded, randomized, controlled trials involving only adult participants and comparing combination therapy (CT: ≥ 2 drugs) to a placebo and/or at least one other comparator with an NP indication. The primary outcome assessed was the proportion of participants reporting ≥50% pain reductions from baseline. The secondary outcome assessed was the proportion of drop-outs due to treatment-emergent adverse events. After removing duplicates, 2323 citations were screened, with 164 articles assessed for eligibility, from which 16 were included for qualitative analysis. From the latter, only five lasted for at least 12 weeks and only six complied with the required data for complete analysis. CT has been adopted for years without robust evidence. Efforts have been made to achieve better-quality evidence, but the quality has not improved over the years. In this regard, guidelines for NP should attempt to make recommendations about CT research, prioritizing which combinations to analyze.


Author(s):  
Ancor Serrano Afonso ◽  
Thiago Carnaval ◽  
Sebastiá Videla Cés

Pharmacological treatment is poorly effective for neuropathic pain (NP). A progressive decrease in the estimated effect of NP drugs has been reported, giving rise to an increase in multimodal analgesic approach. We performed a systematic review to assess whether there is more and better-quality evidence available since the last review. We evaluated the efficacy, tolerability and safety of double-blind randomized controlled trials involving only adult participants comparing combination therapy (CT: ≥ 2 drugs) to placebo and/or at least one other comparator with NP indication. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants reporting ≥ 50% pain reduction from baseline. Secondary outcome was the proportion of drop-outs due to treatment-emergent-adverse-events. After removing duplicates, 2323 citations were screened. 164 articles were assessed for eligibility, from which 16 were included for qualitative analysis. From the latter, only 5 lasted for at least 12 weeks and only 6 complied with required data for complete analysis, but not for meta-analysis. CT has been adopted for years without robust evidence. Efforts to achieve better quality evidence have not improved over the years. In this regard, guidelines for NP should attempt to make recommendations on CT research, prioritizing which combinations to analyze.


BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. e023600 ◽  
Author(s):  
Igho J Onakpoya ◽  
Elizabeth T Thomas ◽  
Joseph J Lee ◽  
Ben Goldacre ◽  
Carl J Heneghan

ObjectiveTo assess the benefits and harms of pregabalin in the management of neuropathic pain.DesignRapid review and meta-analysis of phase III, randomised, placebo-controlled trials.ParticipantsAdults aged 18 years and above with neuropathic pain defined according to the International Association for the Study of Pain criteria.InterventionsPregabalin or placebo.Primary and secondary outcome measuresOur primary outcomes were pain (as measured using validated scales) and adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were sleep disturbance, quality of life, Patient Global Impression of Change, Clinician Global Impression scale, anxiety and depression scores, overall discontinuations and discontinuations because of adverse events.ResultsWe included 28 trials comprising 6087 participants. The neuropathic pain conditions studied were diabetic peripheral neuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, herpes zoster, sciatica (radicular pain), poststroke pain and spinal cord injury-related pain. Patients who took pregabalin reported significant reductions in pain (numerical rating scale (NRS)) compared with placebo (standardised mean difference (SMD) −0.49 (95% CI −0.66 to −0.32, p<0.00001), very low quality evidence). Pregabalin significantly reduced sleep interference scores (NRS) compared with placebo (SMD −0.38 (95% CI −0.50 to −0.26, p<0.00001), moderate quality evidence. Pregabalin significantly increased the risk of adverse events compared with placebo (RR 1.33 (95% CI 1.23 to 1.44, p<0.00001, low quality evidence)). The risks of experiencing weight gain, somnolence, dizziness, peripheral oedema, fatigue, visual disturbances, ataxia, non-peripheral oedema, vertigo and euphoria were significantly increased with pregabalin. Pregabalin was significantly more likely than placebo to lead to discontinuation of the drug because of adverse events (RR 1.91 (95% CI 1.54 to 2.37, p<0.00001), low quality evidence).ConclusionPregabalin has beneficial effects on some symptoms of neuropathic pain. However, its use significantly increases the risk of a number of adverse events and discontinuation due to adverse events. The quality of the evidence from journal publications is low.


2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (Supplement_3) ◽  
pp. iii375-iii375
Author(s):  
Eric Bouffet ◽  
James A Whitlock ◽  
Christopher Moertel ◽  
Birgit Geoerger ◽  
Isabelle Aerts ◽  
...  

Abstract BACKGROUND Children with BRAF V600-mutant LGG have suboptimal response to standard chemotherapy. Previously, D (BRAF V600 inhibitor) monotherapy has demonstrated clinical benefit in this population. We report interim analysis results of pediatric patients with recurrent/refractory BRAF V600-mutant LGG treated with either T (MEK1/2 inhibitor) monotherapy or D+T combination therapy. METHODS This is a 4-part, open-label, multicenter, phase I/II study (NCT02124772) in pediatric patients (&lt;18 y) with refractory/recurrent tumors. The dose-finding phase, including dose confirmation stratified by age, was followed by disease-specific cohorts at recommended dose levels. Efficacy was determined by both investigator and independent review using RANO criteria. Adverse events (AEs) were assessed per NCI-CTCAE v4.03. RESULTS Of 49 pediatric patients with BRAF V600-mutant LGG (T, n=13; D+T, n=36) enrolled, pooled efficacy data was available for both treatments while safety data was available for 30 patients (T, n=10; D+T, n=20). Most patients (n=8/10) receiving T monotherapy withdrew/discontinued the treatment in contrast to 3/20 in the D+T group. Pyrexia occurred in 50% of patients (n=5/10) in the monotherapy group and was a frequent AE in the combination group (75%; n=15/20). Objective response rate per independent review was 15% (95% CI, 2%–45%) with T monotherapy and 25% (95% CI, 12%–42%) with D+T combination therapy. Seven patients (54%) on monotherapy and 33 patients (92%) on combination therapy had stable disease or better. CONCLUSION In pediatric patients with previously treated BRAF V600-mutant LGG, T monotherapy and D+T combination therapy demonstrated clinical activity, with pyrexia being a common AE.


2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (11) ◽  
pp. 2015-2025 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sung Yeon Hwang ◽  
◽  
Seung Mok Ryoo ◽  
Jong Eun Park ◽  
You Hwan Jo ◽  
...  

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 868-868
Author(s):  
Manuel Carcao ◽  
Mariana Silva ◽  
Michele David ◽  
Robert J. Klaassen ◽  
MacGregor Steele ◽  
...  

Abstract The combination of intravenous (IV) methylprednisolone (IVMP) and IV immune globulin (IVIG) is often used in children with immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) to rapidly increase platelet counts (PCs) to a safe hemostatic level. However, there are no controlled data to support the use of combination therapy over IVIG alone in children with severe thrombocytopenia [PC <20 x109/L] and/or life-threatening bleeding. We conducted a randomized, double-blinded, placebo controlled, multicenter, prospective study to evaluate 2 regimens: IVMP (Solu-Medrol®, UpJohn) 30 mg/kg (max. 1 gram) over 1 hour (h) followed by IVIG 1 g/kg (Gammunex 10%, Bayer) given at a rapid infusion rate (over a maximum of 3 h), vs IV placebo over 1 h followed by IVIG 1 g/kg in children with primary ITP. The goal was to evaluate the rapidity of the PC increment and associated adverse events with both regimens. Eligible patients were children [ages: 1 to 17 years (y)] with acute (defined at the time of study initiation as <6 months (mo.) since diagnosis) or chronic primary ITP (>6 mo.), with PCs <20x109/L in whom it was decided to treat with IVIG. Exclusion criteria included: previous splenectomy, life/organ threatening hemorrhage, renal disease, diabetes, hypertension, sepsis, fever >38.5°C, disseminated intravascular coagulation, pregnancy or a previous documented lack of response to IVIG. Baseline studies included: a complete blood count (CBC), a reticulocyte count, Coombs test and renal and liver function tests. CBCs were repeated at the end of the IVIG infusion, at 8±1h, 24±2h, 72±4h, day 7±2 day (d) and day 21±3d following the start of the placebo/IVMP. The primary outcome measure was the PC increment over the first 24 h following the administration of therapy; the main secondary outcome measures were the attainment of a PC of ≥20x109/L and ≥50x109/L at times + 8, +24 and +72h. Sample size was estimated based on the assumption that patients treated with placebo + IVIG would attain a mean PC at +24h of 30x109/L vs. 50x109/L for those treated with IVMP + IVIG. For 80% power to show a difference in PC of 20x109/L (at +24h)with an a of 0.025 (two-sided) and a b of 0.2, 32 patients were required. Patients were stratified by block randomization according to type of ITP (acute vs. chronic) and according to center. The trial was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. (NCT00376077). Thirty two patients were enrolled (ages: median 8 y; min. 1.2 y; max: 17.5 y; 22 male: 10 female; 16 acute: 16 chronic; 11 were blood type O; 14 blood type A and 7 blood type B). Fourteen patients were randomized to IVMP+IVIG while 18 were randomized to placebo+IVIG. Randomization was not equal as 1 patient was randomized and then immediately declined to participate and another patient was incorrectly assigned; both were assigned to the placebo group. PCs for the 2 groups of patients at the different time points are shown in table 1. The difference in PC was statistically significant at the 24 hr time point (p<0.0001). At this time the proportion of patients achieving a PC of ≥50x109/L was 77% in the IVMP+IVIG vs 50% in the placebo+IVIG. No patient experienced a severe bleed or an unexpected severe adverse event during the study. There was a statistically significant drop in mean Hb post-treatment among all patients (baseline 133.3 (13.6) g/L to 121.6 (14.2) g/L at time +8h) but there was no difference between O and non-O blood type patients or between treatment groups. This study showed that PCs increased rapidly following administration of IVIG with or without IVMP such that by 8h post initiation of therapy 55% (17/31) of all patients had achieved a PC ≥20x109/L. The mean PC was significantly different between the groups at time +24h. Our findings provide level 1 evidence to support the use of combination therapy (IVMP+IVIG) in life threatening situations where it is deemed to important to attain as rapidly as possible a hemostatic platelet count. Table 1 Table 1. Disclosures Blanchette: Shire: Consultancy, Other: Member of a Data Safety Monitoring Board, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; CSL-Behring: Research Funding; Octapharna: Other: Member of a Data Safety Monitoring Board; Biogen Idec: Research Funding; Bayer Healthcare: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novo Nordisk: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document