Chaparro Luis Enrique, Wiffen Philip J, Moore R Andrew, Gilron Ian
Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Jul 11;2012(7):CD008943. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008943.pub2.
Pharmacotherapy remains an important modality for the treatment of neuropathic pain. However, as monotherapy current drugs are associated with limited efficacy and dose-related side effects. Combining two or more different drugs may improve analgesic efficacy and, in some situations, reduce overall side effects (e.g. if synergistic interactions allow for dose reductions of combined drugs).
This review evaluated the efficacy, tolerability and safety of various drug combinations for the treatment of neuropathic pain.
We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of various drug combinations for neuropathic pain from CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and handsearches of other reviews and trial registries. The most recent search was performed on 9 April 2012.
Double-blind, randomised studies comparing combinations of two or more drugs (systemic or topical) to placebo and/or at least one other comparator for the treatment of neuropathic pain.
Data extracted from each study included: proportion of participants a) reporting ≥ 30% pain reduction from baseline OR ≥ moderate pain relief OR ≥ moderate global improvement; b) dropping out of the trial due to treatment-emergent adverse effects; c) reporting each specific adverse effect (e.g. sedation, dizziness) of ≥ moderate severity. The primary comparison of interest was between study drug(s) and one or both single-agent comparators. We combined studies if they evaluated the same drug class combination at roughly similar doses and durations of treatment. We used RevMan 5 to analyse data for binary outcomes.
We identified 21 eligible studies: four (578 participants) evaluated the combination of an opioid with gabapentin or pregabalin; two (77 participants) evaluated an opioid with a tricyclic antidepressant; one (56 participants) of gabapentin and nortriptyline; one (120 participants) of gabapentin and alpha-lipoic acid, three (90 participants) of fluphenazine with a tricyclic antidepressant; three (90 participants) of an N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) blocker with an agent from a different drug class; five (604 participants) of various topical medications; one (313 participants) of tramadol with acetaminophen; and another one (44 participants) of a cholecystokinin blocker (L-365,260) with morphine. The majority of combinations evaluated to date involve drugs, each of which share some element of central nervous system (CNS) depression (e.g. sedation, cognitive dysfunction). This aspect of side effect overlap between the combined agents was often reflected in similar or higher dropout rates for the combination and may thus substantially limit the utility of such drug combinations. Meta-analysis was possible for only one comparison of only one combination, i.e. gabapentin + opioid versus gabapentin alone. This meta-analysis involving 386 participants from two studies demonstrated modest, yet statistically significant, superiority of a gabapentin + opioid combination over gabapentin alone. However, this combination also produced significantly more frequent side effect-related trial dropouts compared to gabapentin alone.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Multiple, good-quality studies demonstrate superior efficacy of two-drug combinations. However, the number of available studies for any one specific combination, as well as other study factors (e.g. limited trial size and duration), preclude the recommendation of any one specific drug combination for neuropathic pain. Demonstration of combination benefits by several studies together with reports of widespread clinical polypharmacy for neuropathic pain surely provide a rationale for additional future rigorous evaluations. In order to properly identify specific drug combinations which provide superior efficacy and/or safety, we recommend that future neuropathic pain studies of two-drug combinations include comparisons with placebo and both single-agent components. Given the apparent adverse impact of combining agents with similar adverse effect profiles (e.g. CNS depression), the anticipated development and availability of non-sedating neuropathic pain agents could lead to the identification of more favourable analgesic drug combinations in which side effects are not compounded.
药物治疗仍然是治疗神经性疼痛的重要方式。然而,作为单一疗法,目前的药物疗效有限且存在剂量相关的副作用。联合使用两种或更多种不同药物可能会提高镇痛效果,并且在某些情况下,可减少总体副作用(例如,如果协同相互作用允许降低联合用药的剂量)。
本综述评估了各种药物联合治疗神经性疼痛的疗效、耐受性和安全性。
我们从Cochrane系统评价数据库、MEDLINE、EMBASE以及对其他综述和试验注册库的手工检索中,识别出关于各种药物联合治疗神经性疼痛的随机对照试验(RCT)。最近一次检索于2012年4月9日进行。
双盲、随机研究,比较两种或更多种药物(全身性或局部性)联合与安慰剂和/或至少一种其他对照药物治疗神经性疼痛的效果。
从每项研究中提取的数据包括:a)报告疼痛较基线减轻≥30%或疼痛缓解程度为中度及以上或总体改善程度为中度及以上的参与者比例;b)因治疗中出现的不良反应而退出试验的参与者比例;c)报告每种严重程度为中度及以上的特定不良反应(如镇静、头晕)的参与者比例。主要的感兴趣比较是研究药物与一种或两种单药对照药物之间的比较。如果研究评估的是大致相似剂量和治疗持续时间的相同药物类别组合,我们就将这些研究合并。我们使用RevMan 5软件分析二分类结局的数据。
我们识别出21项符合条件的研究:四项研究(578名参与者)评估了阿片类药物与加巴喷丁或普瑞巴林的联合;两项研究(77名参与者)评估了阿片类药物与三环类抗抑郁药的联合;一项研究(56名参与者)评估了加巴喷丁与去甲替林的联合;一项研究(120名参与者)评估了加巴喷丁与α-硫辛酸的联合;三项研究(90名参与者)评估了氟奋乃静与三环类抗抑郁药的联合;三项研究(90名参与者)评估了N-甲基-D-天冬氨酸(NMDA)受体阻滞剂与另一类药物的联合;五项研究(604名参与者)评估了各种局部用药;一项研究(313名参与者)评估了曲马多与对乙酰氨基酚的联合;另一项研究(44名参与者)评估了胆囊收缩素受体阻滞剂(L-365,260)与吗啡的联合。迄今为止评估的大多数联合用药都涉及药物,其中每种药物都有一些中枢神经系统(CNS)抑制的成分(如镇静、认知功能障碍)。联合用药之间这种副作用重叠的情况通常反映在联合用药组相似或更高的退出率上,因此可能会极大地限制此类药物联合的实用性。仅对一种联合用药(即加巴喷丁 + 阿片类药物与单独使用加巴喷丁)的一项比较能够进行荟萃分析。这项涉及两项研究中386名参与者的荟萃分析表明,加巴喷丁 + 阿片类药物联合组相对于单独使用加巴喷丁组有适度但具有统计学意义的优势。然而,与单独使用加巴喷丁相比,这种联合用药也导致与副作用相关的试验退出更为频繁。
多项高质量研究表明两药联合具有更好的疗效。然而,针对任何一种特定联合用药的现有研究数量以及其他研究因素(如试验规模和持续时间有限),使得无法推荐任何一种特定的药物联合用于治疗神经性疼痛。多项研究证明联合用药的益处以及临床上广泛使用多种药物治疗神经性疼痛的报道,无疑为未来进行更多严格评估提供了理论依据。为了正确识别具有更好疗效和/或安全性的特定药物联合,我们建议未来关于两药联合治疗神经性疼痛的研究应包括与安慰剂以及两种单药成分的比较。鉴于具有相似不良反应谱(如CNS抑制)的药物联合使用存在明显的不良影响,预计非镇静性神经性疼痛药物的研发和应用可能会促使人们识别出更有利的镇痛药物联合,其中副作用不会叠加。