Kontor Ernest Kissi, Wellan Catherine, Maaz Hafiz Mohammad, Muhammad Daha Garba, Al-Qiami Almonzer, Sharifan Amin, Kumah Jessica, Lacey Hester, Siddiq Abdelmonem, Jain Nityanand
Department of Theoretical and Applied Biology, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana.
Clinical Laboratory, Evergreen Health, Monroe, Washington, USA.
Pain Res Manag. 2024 Dec 26;2024:6782574. doi: 10.1155/prm/6782574. eCollection 2024.
Neuropathic pain (NP) is a chronic condition caused by abnormal neuronal excitability in the nervous system. Current treatments for NP are often ineffective or poorly tolerated. Hence, we reviewed the efficacy and safety of novel drugs or devices that target neuronal excitability in NP patients compared with placebo, sham, or usual care interventions. Six databases were searched for parallel randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting novel devices (rTMS, SCS, and TENS) or drugs (EMA401, capsaicin 8% patch, and Sativex) for NP. Data were extracted and quality was assessed using the ROB2 tool. The random-effects inverse variance method was used for analysis. In our review of 30 RCTs with 4251 participants, device-based interventions were found to be more effective in reducing pain scores than control interventions (SMD = -1.27, 95% CI: -1.92 to -0.62). However, high heterogeneity was seen ( < 0.01, = 91%), attributable to the etiology of NP ( = 58.84%) and year of publication ( = 49.49%). Funding source and type of control comparator were ruled out as cause of heterogeneity. Although drug interventions did not differ from placebo interventions in absolute pain reduction (SMD = -1.21, 95% CI: -3.55 to 1.13), when comparing relative change in pain intensity from baseline, drug interventions were found to be effective (SMD = 0.29, 95% CI: 0.04-0.55). Asymmetry in the funnel plot was visualized, suggesting publication bias. Certainty of evidence was very low according to GRADE assessment. Our review indicates that device-based interventions are more effective than control interventions in reducing pain intensity in NP. Nevertheless, available evidence is limited due to heterogeneity and publication bias, prompting the need for more high-quality RCTs to confirm the efficacy and safety of these interventions.
神经病理性疼痛(NP)是一种由神经系统中神经元兴奋性异常引起的慢性疾病。目前针对NP的治疗方法往往无效或耐受性差。因此,我们回顾了与安慰剂、假治疗或常规护理干预相比,针对NP患者神经元兴奋性的新型药物或设备的疗效和安全性。检索了六个数据库,以查找报告用于NP的新型设备(重复经颅磁刺激、脊髓刺激和经皮电刺激神经疗法)或药物(EMA401、8%辣椒素贴剂和萨替维克斯)的平行随机对照试验(RCT)。使用ROB2工具提取数据并评估质量。采用随机效应逆方差法进行分析。在我们对30项RCT(4251名参与者)的综述中,发现基于设备的干预在降低疼痛评分方面比对照干预更有效(标准化均数差=-1.27,95%置信区间:-1.92至-0.62)。然而,观察到高度异质性(I²<0.01,I²=91%),这归因于NP的病因(I²=58.84%)和发表年份(I²=49.49%)。排除资金来源和对照比较器类型作为异质性原因。尽管药物干预在绝对疼痛减轻方面与安慰剂干预没有差异(标准化均数差=-1.21,95%置信区间:-3.55至1.13),但在比较疼痛强度相对于基线的相对变化时,发现药物干预是有效的(标准化均数差=0.29,95%置信区间:0.04 - 0.55)。漏斗图中可见不对称性,表明存在发表偏倚。根据GRADE评估,证据确定性非常低。我们的综述表明,基于设备的干预在降低NP患者的疼痛强度方面比对照干预更有效。然而,由于异质性和发表偏倚,现有证据有限,这促使需要更多高质量的RCT来证实这些干预措施的疗效和安全性。