Derry Sheena, Wiffen Philip J, Aldington Dominic, Moore R Andrew
Pain Research and Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences (Nuffield Division of Anaesthetics), University of Oxford, Pain Research Unit, Churchill Hospital, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK, OX3 7LE.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Jan 8;1(1):CD011209. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011209.pub2.
Antidepressants are widely used to treat chronic neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage), usually in doses below those at which they exert antidepressant effects. An earlier review that included all antidepressants for neuropathic pain is being replaced by new reviews of individual drugs examining individual neuropathic pain conditions.Nortriptyline is a tricyclic antidepressant that is occasionally used for treating neuropathic pain, and is recommended in European, UK, and USA guidelines.
To assess the analgesic efficacy and associated adverse events of nortriptyline for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE from inception to 7 January 2015, and the reference lists of retrieved papers and other reviews. We also searched two clinical trials databases for ongoing or unpublished studies.
We included randomised, double-blind studies of at least two weeks' duration comparing nortriptyline with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain. Participants were adults aged 18 years and over. We included only full journal publication articles and clinical trial summaries.
Two review authors independently extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality. We considered the evidence using three tiers. First tier evidence derived from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction, intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for dropouts; at least 200 participants in the comparison, 8 to 12 weeks' duration, parallel design); second tier evidence from data that failed to meet one or more of these criteria and were considered at some risk of bias but with adequate numbers in the comparison; and third tier evidence from data involving small numbers of participants that was considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both.We planned to calculate risk ratio (RR) and numbers needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) and harmful outcome (NNH) using standard methods expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.
We included six studies treating 310 participants (mean or median age 49 to 64 years) with various neuropathic pain conditions. Five studies used a cross-over design, and one used a parallel-group design; 272 participants were randomised to treatment with nortriptyline, 145 to placebo, 94 to gabapentin, 56 to gabapentin plus nortriptyline, 55 to morphine, 55 to morphine plus nortriptyline, 39 to chlorimipramine, and 33 to amitriptyline. Treatment periods lasted from three to eight weeks. All studies had one or more sources of potential major bias.No study provided first or second tier evidence for any outcome. Only one study reported our primary outcome of people with at least 50% reduction in pain. There was no indication that either nortriptyline or gabapentin was more effective in postherpetic neuralgia (very low quality evidence). Two studies reported the number of people with at least moderate pain relief, and one reported the number who were satisfied with their pain relief and had tolerable adverse effects. We considered these outcomes to be equivalent to our other primary outcome of Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) much or very much improved.We could not pool data, but third tier evidence in individual studies indicated similar efficacy to other active interventions (gabapentin, morphine, chlorimipramine, and amitriptyline), and to placebo in the conditions studied (very low quality evidence). Adverse event reporting was inconsistent and fragmented. More participants reported adverse events with nortriptyline than with placebo, similar numbers with nortriptyline and other antidepressants (amitriptyline and chlorimipramine) and gabapentin, and slightly more with morphine (very low quality evidence). No study reported any serious adverse events or deaths.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found little evidence to support the use of nortriptyline to treat the neuropathic pain conditions included in this review. There were no studies in the treatment of trigeminal neuralgia. The studies were methodologically flawed, largely due to small size, and potentially subject to major bias. The results of this review do not support the use of nortriptyline as a first line treatment. Effective medicines with much greater supportive evidence are available, such as duloxetine and pregabalin.
抗抑郁药广泛用于治疗慢性神经性疼痛(因神经损伤引起的疼痛),通常使用的剂量低于发挥抗抑郁作用的剂量。一项较早的涵盖所有用于神经性疼痛的抗抑郁药的综述正被针对个别药物和个别神经性疼痛状况的新综述所取代。去甲替林是一种三环类抗抑郁药,偶尔用于治疗神经性疼痛,在欧洲、英国和美国的指南中均有推荐。
评估去甲替林治疗成人慢性神经性疼痛的镇痛效果及相关不良事件。
我们检索了Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)、MEDLINE和EMBASE,检索时间从建库至2015年1月7日,并检索了检索论文和其他综述的参考文献列表。我们还检索了两个临床试验数据库以查找正在进行或未发表的研究。
我们纳入了至少为期两周的随机、双盲研究,这些研究比较了去甲替林与安慰剂或其他活性治疗在慢性神经性疼痛中的效果。参与者为18岁及以上的成年人。我们仅纳入完整的期刊发表文章和临床试验总结。
两位综述作者独立提取疗效和不良事件数据,并检查研究质量问题。我们使用三个层次来考量证据。第一层次证据来自符合当前最佳标准且偏倚风险最小的数据(结果等同于疼痛强度大幅降低,意向性分析,不对失访进行插补;比较组中至少有200名参与者,为期8至12周,平行设计);第二层次证据来自未满足上述一项或多项标准的数据,这些数据被认为存在一定偏倚风险,但比较组中有足够数量的参与者;第三层次证据来自涉及少量参与者的数据,这些数据被认为很可能存在偏倚或使用了临床效用有限的结果,或两者皆有。我们计划使用Cochrane协作网期望的标准方法计算风险比(RR)以及额外有益结果的需治疗人数(NNT)和有害结果的需治疗人数(NNH)。
我们纳入了六项研究,共310名参与者(平均或中位年龄49至64岁),涉及各种神经性疼痛状况。五项研究采用交叉设计,一项采用平行组设计;272名参与者被随机分配接受去甲替林治疗,145名接受安慰剂治疗,94名接受加巴喷丁治疗,56名接受加巴喷丁加去甲替林治疗,55名接受吗啡治疗,55名接受吗啡加去甲替林治疗,39名接受氯米帕明治疗,33名接受阿米替林治疗。治疗期持续三至八周。所有研究均存在一个或多个潜在的主要偏倚来源。没有研究为任何结果提供第一或第二层次证据。只有一项研究报告了我们的主要结果,即疼痛减轻至少50%的人数。没有迹象表明去甲替林或加巴喷丁在带状疱疹后神经痛中更有效(证据质量极低)。两项研究报告了疼痛至少有中度缓解的人数,一项研究报告了对疼痛缓解满意且不良反应可耐受的人数。我们认为这些结果等同于我们另一个主要结果,即患者总体变化印象(PGIC)为改善很多或非常多。我们无法汇总数据,但个别研究的第三层次证据表明,在所研究的状况下,其疗效与其他活性干预措施(加巴喷丁、吗啡、氯米帕明和阿米替林)以及安慰剂相似(证据质量极低)。不良事件报告不一致且零散。报告去甲替林不良事件的参与者多于安慰剂组,去甲替林与其他抗抑郁药(阿米替林和氯米帕明)及加巴喷丁的不良事件报告数量相似,吗啡的不良事件报告数量略多(证据质量极低)。没有研究报告任何严重不良事件或死亡。
我们几乎没有找到证据支持使用去甲替林治疗本综述中所涵盖的神经性疼痛状况。没有关于三叉神经痛治疗的研究。这些研究在方法上存在缺陷,主要是由于样本量小,并且可能存在重大偏倚。本综述的结果不支持将去甲替林用作一线治疗。有更具充分支持证据的有效药物可供使用,如度洛西汀和普瑞巴林。