Associate Professor in the College of Pharmacy at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg.
Pharmacist in Edmonton, Alta, and Clinical Evidence Expert for the College of Family Physicians of Canada.
Can Fam Physician. 2021 May;67(5):e130-e140. doi: 10.46747/cfp.6705e130.
To determine the proportion of patients with neuropathic pain who achieve a clinically meaningful improvement in their pain with the use of different pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments.
MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and a gray literature search.
Randomized controlled trials that reported a responder analysis of adults with neuropathic pain-specifically diabetic neuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, or trigeminal neuralgia-treated with any of the following 8 treatments: exercise, acupuncture, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), topical rubefacients, opioids, anticonvulsant medications, and topical lidocaine.
A total of 67 randomized controlled trials were included. There was moderate certainty of evidence that anticonvulsant medications (risk ratio of 1.54; 95% CI 1.45 to 1.63; number needed to treat [NNT] of 7) and SNRIs (risk ratio of 1.45; 95% CI 1.33 to 1.59; NNT = 7) might provide a clinically meaningful benefit to patients with neuropathic pain. There was low certainty of evidence for a clinically meaningful benefit for rubefacients (ie, capsaicin; NNT = 7) and opioids (NNT = 8), and very low certainty of evidence for TCAs. Very low-quality evidence demonstrated that acupuncture was ineffective. All drug classes, except TCAs, had a greater likelihood of deriving a clinically meaningful benefit than having withdrawals due to adverse events (number needed to harm between 12 and 15). No trials met the inclusion criteria for exercise or lidocaine, nor were any trials identified for trigeminal neuralgia.
There is moderate certainty of evidence that anticonvulsant medications and SNRIs provide a clinically meaningful reduction in pain in those with neuropathic pain, with lower certainty of evidence for rubefacients and opioids, and very low certainty of evidence for TCAs. Owing to low-quality evidence for many interventions, future high-quality trials that report responder analyses will be important to strengthen understanding of the relative benefits and harms of treatments in patients with neuropathic pain.
确定使用不同的药物和非药物治疗方法,患有神经性疼痛的患者在疼痛方面获得临床显著改善的比例。
MEDLINE、EMBASE、Cochrane 图书馆和灰色文献搜索。
报告了对患有神经性疼痛(具体为糖尿病性神经病、带状疱疹后神经痛或三叉神经痛)的成人进行反应者分析的随机对照试验,这些患者接受了以下 8 种治疗方法中的任何一种治疗:运动、针灸、血清素-去甲肾上腺素再摄取抑制剂(SNRIs)、三环类抗抑郁药(TCAs)、局部皮肤刺激剂、阿片类药物、抗惊厥药物和局部利多卡因。
共纳入 67 项随机对照试验。有中等确定性证据表明,抗惊厥药物(风险比为 1.54;95%置信区间为 1.45 至 1.63;需要治疗的人数[NNT]为 7)和 SNRIs(风险比为 1.45;95%置信区间为 1.33 至 1.59;NNT=7)可能为神经性疼痛患者提供临床显著益处。对于皮肤刺激剂(即辣椒素;NNT=7)和阿片类药物(NNT=8),有低确定性证据表明存在临床显著益处,而对于 TCAs,则有非常低确定性证据。非常低质量的证据表明针灸无效。除 TCAs 外,所有药物类别都更有可能获得临床显著益处,而不是因不良反应而停药(需要治疗的人数在 12 到 15 之间)。没有试验符合运动或利多卡因的纳入标准,也没有为三叉神经痛确定任何试验。
有中等确定性证据表明,抗惊厥药物和 SNRIs 可使神经性疼痛患者的疼痛得到临床显著缓解,而皮肤刺激剂和阿片类药物的证据确定性较低,TCAs 的证据确定性非常低。由于许多干预措施的证据质量较低,未来报告反应者分析的高质量试验对于加强对神经性疼痛患者治疗的相对益处和危害的理解将非常重要。