Gallagher Helen C, Gallagher Ruth M, Butler Michelle, Buggy Donal J, Henman Martin C
School of Medicine and Medical Science, Conway Institute, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Aug 23;2015(8):CD011091. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011091.pub2.
Neuropathic pain, which is caused by nerve damage, is increasing in prevalence worldwide. This may reflect improved diagnosis, or it may be due to increased incidence of diabetes-associated neuropathy, linked to increasing levels of obesity. Other types of neuropathic pain include post-herpetic neuralgia, trigeminal neuralgia, and neuralgia caused by chemotherapy. Antidepressant drugs are sometimes used to treat neuropathic pain; however, their analgesic efficacy is unclear. A previous Cochrane review that included all antidepressants for neuropathic pain is being replaced by new reviews of individual drugs examining chronic neuropathic pain in the first instance. Venlafaxine is a reasonably well-tolerated antidepressant and is a serotonin reuptake inhibitor and weak noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor. Although not licensed for the treatment of chronic or neuropathic pain in most countries, it is sometimes used for this indication.
To assess the analgesic efficacy of, and the adverse effects associated with the clinical use of, venlafaxine for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via The Cochrane Library, and MEDLINE and EMBASE via Ovid up to 14 August 2014. We reviewed the bibliographies of any randomised trials identified and review articles, contacted authors of one excluded study and searched www.clinicaltrials.gov to identify additional published or unpublished data. We also searched the meta-Register of controlled trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com/mrct) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (apps.who.int/trialsearch/) for ongoing trials but did not find any relevant trials.
We included randomised, double-blind studies of at least two weeks' duration comparing venlafaxine with either placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain in adults. All participants were aged 18 years or over and all included studies had at least 10 participants per treatment arm. We only included studies with full journal publication.
Three review authors independently extracted data using a standard form and assessed study quality. We intend to analyse data in three tiers of evidence as described by Hearn 2014, but did not find any first-tier evidence (ie evidence meeting current best standards, with minimal risk of bias) or second-tier evidence, that was considered at some risk of bias but with adequate participant numbers (at least 200 in the comparison). Third-tier evidence is that arising from studies with small numbers of participants; studies of short duration, studies that are likely to be of limited clinical utility due to other limitations, including selection bias and attrition bias; or a combination of these.
We found six randomised, double-blind trials of at least two weeks' duration eligible for inclusion. These trials included 460 participants with neuropathic pain, with most participants having painful diabetic neuropathy. Four studies were of cross-over design and two were parallel trials. Only one trial was both parallel design and placebo-controlled. Mean age of participants ranged from 48 to 59 years. In three studies (Forssell 2004, Jia 2006 and Tasmuth 2002), only mean data were reported. Comparators included placebo, imipramine, and carbamazepine and duration of treatment ranged from two to eight weeks. The risk of bias was considerable overall in the review, especially due to the small size of most studies and due to attrition bias. Four of the six studies reported some positive benefit for venlafaxine. In the largest study by Rowbotham, 2004, 56% of participants receiving venlafaxine 150 to 225 mg achieved at least a 50% reduction in pain intensity versus 34% of participants in the placebo group and the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome was 4.5. However, this study was subject to significant selection bias. Known adverse effects of venlafaxine, including somnolence, dizziness, and mild gastrointestinal problems, were reported in all studies but were not particularly problematic and, overall, adverse effects were equally prominent in placebo or other active comparator groups.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found little compelling evidence to support the use of venlafaxine in neuropathic pain. While there was some third-tier evidence of benefit, this arose from studies that had methodological limitations and considerable risk of bias. Placebo effects were notably strong in several studies. Given that effective drug treatments for neuropathic pain are in current use, there is no evidence to revise prescribing guidelines to promote the use of venlafaxine in neuropathic pain. Although venlafaxine was generally reasonably well tolerated, there was some evidence that it can precipitate fatigue, somnolence, nausea, and dizziness in a minority of people.
由神经损伤引起的神经性疼痛在全球范围内的患病率正在上升。这可能反映了诊断水平的提高,也可能是由于与肥胖水平上升相关的糖尿病性神经病变发病率增加所致。其他类型的神经性疼痛包括带状疱疹后神经痛、三叉神经痛和化疗引起的神经痛。抗抑郁药有时用于治疗神经性疼痛;然而,其镇痛效果尚不清楚。之前一项纳入所有用于神经性疼痛的抗抑郁药的Cochrane综述正被针对个别药物的新综述所取代,这些新综述首先研究慢性神经性疼痛。文拉法辛是一种耐受性较好的抗抑郁药,是一种5-羟色胺再摄取抑制剂和弱去甲肾上腺素再摄取抑制剂。尽管在大多数国家未被批准用于治疗慢性或神经性疼痛,但有时会用于此适应症。
评估文拉法辛治疗成人慢性神经性疼痛的镇痛效果及临床使用相关的不良反应。
我们通过Cochrane图书馆检索了Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL),并通过Ovid检索了截至2014年8月14日的MEDLINE和EMBASE。我们查阅了所识别的任何随机试验的参考文献和综述文章,联系了一项排除研究的作者,并检索了www.clinicaltrials.gov以识别其他已发表或未发表的数据。我们还在对照试验元注册库(mRCT)(www.controlled-trials.com/mrct)和世界卫生组织国际临床试验注册平台(ICTRP)(apps.who.int/trialsearch/)中检索了正在进行的试验,但未找到任何相关试验。
我们纳入了至少为期两周的随机、双盲研究,比较文拉法辛与安慰剂或其他活性治疗药物用于成人慢性神经性疼痛的疗效。所有参与者年龄在18岁及以上,所有纳入研究的每个治疗组至少有10名参与者。我们仅纳入已在期刊上全文发表的研究。
三位综述作者使用标准表格独立提取数据并评估研究质量。我们打算按照Hearn 2014所述的三个证据层级分析数据,但未找到任何一级证据(即符合当前最佳标准、偏倚风险最小的证据)或二级证据,二级证据虽被认为存在一定偏倚风险但参与者数量充足(比较组至少200人)。三级证据来自参与者数量少的研究;研究持续时间短;由于包括选择偏倚和失访偏倚在内的其他局限性而可能临床应用有限的研究;或这些情况的组合。
我们发现六项至少为期两周的随机、双盲试验符合纳入标准。这些试验包括460名神经性疼痛患者,大多数患者患有疼痛性糖尿病性神经病变。四项研究为交叉设计,两项为平行试验。只有一项试验为平行设计且采用安慰剂对照。参与者的平均年龄在48至59岁之间。在三项研究(Forssell 2004、Jia 2006和Tasmuth 2002)中,仅报告了均值数据。对照药物包括安慰剂、丙咪嗪和卡马西平,治疗持续时间为两至八周。总体而言,该综述中的偏倚风险相当大,尤其是由于大多数研究规模较小以及存在失访偏倚。六项研究中有四项报告文拉法辛有一些积极益处。在Rowbotham于2004年进行的最大规模研究中,接受150至225毫克文拉法辛治疗的参与者中有56%的人疼痛强度至少降低了50%,而安慰剂组为34%,为获得额外有益结果所需治疗的人数为4.5。然而,这项研究存在显著的选择偏倚。所有研究均报告了文拉法辛的已知不良反应,包括嗜睡、头晕和轻度胃肠道问题,但这些问题并不特别严重,总体而言,安慰剂或其他活性对照药物组的不良反应同样明显。
我们几乎没有找到令人信服的证据支持使用文拉法辛治疗神经性疼痛。虽然有一些三级证据表明其有益,但这些证据来自存在方法学局限性和相当大偏倚风险的研究。在几项研究中,安慰剂效应尤为明显。鉴于目前已有有效的神经性疼痛治疗药物,没有证据可修订处方指南以推广使用文拉法辛治疗神经性疼痛。尽管文拉法辛总体耐受性较好,但有一些证据表明它可能会使少数人出现疲劳、嗜睡、恶心和头晕。