Soliman Nadia, Moisset Xavier, Ferraro Michael C, de Andrade Daniel Ciampi, Baron Ralf, Belton Joletta, Bennett David L H, Calvo Margarita, Dougherty Patrick, Gilron Ian, Hietaharju Aki J, Hosomi Koichi, Kamerman Peter R, Kemp Harriet, Enax-Krumova Elena K, McNicol Ewan, Price Theodore J, Raja Srinivasa N, Rice Andrew S C, Smith Blair H, Talkington Fiona, Truini Andrea, Vollert Jan, Attal Nadine, Finnerup Nanna B, Haroutounian Simon
Pain Research Group, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Université Clermont Auvergne, CHU Clermont-Ferrand, Inserm, Neuro-Dol, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Lancet Neurol. 2025 May;24(5):413-428. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(25)00068-7.
There remains a substantial unmet need for effective and safe treatments for neuropathic pain. The Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group aimed to update treatment recommendations, published in 2015, on the basis of new evidence from randomised controlled trials, emerging neuromodulation techniques, and advances in evidence synthesis.
For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched Embase, PubMed, the International Clinical Trials Registry, and ClinicalTrials.gov from data inception for neuromodulation trials and from Jan 1, 2013, for pharmacological interventions until Feb 12, 2024. We included double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trials that evaluated pharmacological and neuromodulation treatments administered for at least 3 weeks, or if there was at least 3 weeks of follow-up, and which included at least ten participants per group. Trials included participants of any age with neuropathic pain, defined by the International Association for the Study of Pain. We excluded trials with enriched enrolment randomised withdrawal designs and those with participants with mixed aetiologies (ie, neuropathic and non-neuropathic pain) and conditions such as complex regional pain syndrome, low back pain without radicular pain, fibromyalgia, and idiopathic orofacial pain. We extracted summary data in duplicate from published reports, with discrepancies reconciled by a third independent reviewer on the platform Covidence. The primary efficacy outcome was the proportion of responders (50% or 30% reduction in baseline pain intensity or moderate pain relief). The primary safety outcome was the number of participants who withdrew from the treatment owing to adverse events. We calculated a risk difference for each comparison and did a random-effects meta-analysis. Risk differences were used to calculate the number needed to treat (NNT) and the number needed to harm (NNH) for each treatment. Risk of bias was assessed by use of the Cochrane risk of bias tool 2 and certainty of evidence assessed by use of GRADE. Recommendations were based on evidence of efficacy, adverse events, accessibility, and cost, and feedback from engaged lived experience partners. This study is registered on PROSPERO, CRD42023389375.
We identified 313 trials (284 pharmacological and 29 neuromodulation studies) for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Across all studies, 48 789 adult participants were randomly assigned to trial groups (20 611 female and 25 078 male participants, where sex was reported). Estimates for the primary efficacy and safety outcomes were tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) NNT=4·6 (95% CI 3·2-7·7), NNH=17·1 (11·4-33·6; moderate certainty of evidence), α2δ-ligands NNT=8·9 (7·4-11·10), NNH=26·2 (20·4-36·5; moderate certainty of evidence), serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) NNT=7·4 (5·6-10·9), NNH=13·9 (10·9-19·0; moderate certainty of evidence), botulinum toxin (BTX-A) NNT=2·7 (1·8-9·61), NNH=216·3 (23·5-∞; moderate certainty of evidence), capsaicin 8% patches NNT=13·2 (7·6-50·8), NNH=1129·3 (135·7-∞; moderate certainty of evidence), opioids NNT=5·9 (4·1-10·7), NNH=15·4 (10·8-24·0; low certainty of evidence), repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) NNT=4·2 (2·3-28·3), NNH=651·6 (34·7-∞; low certainty of evidence), capsaicin cream NNT=6·1 (3·1-∞), NNH=18·6 (10·6-77·1; very low certainty of evidence), lidocaine 5% plasters NNT=14·5 (7·8-108·2), NNH=178·0 (23·9-∞; very low certainty of evidence). The findings provided the basis for a strong recommendation for use of TCAs, α2δ-ligands, and SNRIs as first-line treatments; a weak recommendation for capsaicin 8% patches, capsaicin cream, and lidocaine 5% plasters as second-line recommendation; and a weak recommendation for BTX-A, rTMS, and opioids as third-line treatments for neuropathic pain.
Our results support a revision of the Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group recommendations for the treatment of neuropathic pain. Treatment outcomes are modest and for some treatments uncertainty remains. Further large placebo-controlled or sham-controlled trials done over clinically relevant timeframes are needed.
NeuPSIG and ERA-NET Neuron.
对于神经性疼痛,仍迫切需要有效且安全的治疗方法。神经性疼痛特殊兴趣小组旨在基于随机对照试验的新证据、新兴的神经调节技术以及证据综合方面的进展,更新2015年发布的治疗建议。
对于这项系统评价和荟萃分析,我们从数据起始点开始在Embase、PubMed、国际临床试验注册库和ClinicalTrials.gov中检索神经调节试验,并从2013年1月1日至2024年2月12日检索药物干预试验。我们纳入了双盲、随机、安慰剂对照试验,这些试验评估了至少持续3周的药物和神经调节治疗,或者如果有至少3周的随访,且每组至少包括10名参与者。试验纳入了任何年龄患有神经性疼痛的参与者,神经性疼痛由国际疼痛研究协会定义。我们排除了采用富集入组随机撤药设计的试验以及参与者病因混合(即神经性和非神经性疼痛)的试验,以及诸如复杂性区域疼痛综合征、无神经根性疼痛的下腰痛、纤维肌痛和特发性口面部疼痛等病症的试验。我们从已发表的报告中重复提取汇总数据,差异由第三位独立审阅者在Covidence平台上进行核对。主要疗效结局是反应者的比例(基线疼痛强度降低50%或30%或疼痛得到中度缓解)。主要安全性结局是因不良事件退出治疗的参与者数量。我们计算了每组比较的风险差值,并进行随机效应荟萃分析。风险差值用于计算每种治疗的治疗所需人数(NNT)和伤害所需人数(NNH)。使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具2评估偏倚风险,使用GRADE评估证据的确定性。建议基于疗效、不良事件、可及性、成本的证据以及来自有实际经验的参与者的反馈。本研究已在PROSPERO注册,注册号为CRD42023389375。
我们确定了313项试验(284项药物试验和29项神经调节研究)纳入荟萃分析。在所有研究中,48789名成年参与者被随机分配到试验组(报告了性别的参与者中,女性20611名,男性25078名)。主要疗效和安全性结局的估计值为:三环类抗抑郁药(TCAs)NNT = 4.6(95%CI 3.2 - 7.7),NNH = 17.1(11.4 - 33.6;证据确定性为中度),α2δ配体NNT = 8.9(7.4 - 11.10),NNH = 26.2(20.4 - 36.