OBJECTIVE: To compare placebo responses in neuropathic pain syndromes. DESIGN: Systematic literature review and meta-analysis. SETTING AND PATIENTS: Randomized placebo-controlled trials assessing pain intensity or pain relief in any neuropathic pain syndrome published since 1995 with ≥5days follow-up. INTERVENTIONS: Placebo response. OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain intensity and responder rates (proportion reporting ≥50% pain relief). Meta-regression models were built. RESULTS: Ninety-four studies (N=5,317) were included in the pain intensity analysis; 47 studies (N=3,087) were included in the responder analysis. After controlling for potential confounders (e.g., subject characteristics, study design characteristics), the placebo response was found to be large and varied with the pain syndrome. Compared with diabetic neuropathic/polyneuropathic pain (DPN), the placebo response for a decline in pain intensity and responder rate was smaller in trials that assessed central pain and postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) and larger in trials that assessed HIV pain. The model-predicted mean decrease (95% confidence interval [CI]) from baseline in pain intensity (0-10 scale) was as follows: DPN, 1.45 (1.35 to 1.55); PHN, 1.16 (1.03 to 1.29); central pain, 0.44 (-0.41 to 1.30); HIV pain, 1.82 (1.51 to 2.12). The predicted responder rates (95% CI) were as follows: DPN, 20% (14.6 to 25.8); PHN, 11.5% (8.4 to 14.5); central pain, 7.2% (2.1 to 12.3); HIV pain, 42.8% (34.9 to 50.7). The type of treatment in the active arm also influenced the placebo response. CONCLUSIONS: Placebo response is influenced by the pain syndrome evaluated. These differences should be considered when evaluating novel compounds for the treatment of neuropathic pain conditions. Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
OBJECTIVE: To compare placebo responses in neuropathic pain syndromes. DESIGN: Systematic literature review and meta-analysis. SETTING AND PATIENTS: Randomized placebo-controlled trials assessing pain intensity or pain relief in any neuropathic pain syndrome published since 1995 with ≥5days follow-up. INTERVENTIONS: Placebo response. OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain intensity and responder rates (proportion reporting ≥50% pain relief). Meta-regression models were built. RESULTS: Ninety-four studies (N=5,317) were included in the pain intensity analysis; 47 studies (N=3,087) were included in the responder analysis. After controlling for potential confounders (e.g., subject characteristics, study design characteristics), the placebo response was found to be large and varied with the pain syndrome. Compared with diabetic neuropathic/polyneuropathic pain (DPN), the placebo response for a decline in pain intensity and responder rate was smaller in trials that assessed central pain and postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) and larger in trials that assessed HIV pain. The model-predicted mean decrease (95% confidence interval [CI]) from baseline in pain intensity (0-10 scale) was as follows: DPN, 1.45 (1.35 to 1.55); PHN, 1.16 (1.03 to 1.29); central pain, 0.44 (-0.41 to 1.30); HIV pain, 1.82 (1.51 to 2.12). The predicted responder rates (95% CI) were as follows: DPN, 20% (14.6 to 25.8); PHN, 11.5% (8.4 to 14.5); central pain, 7.2% (2.1 to 12.3); HIV pain, 42.8% (34.9 to 50.7). The type of treatment in the active arm also influenced the placebo response. CONCLUSIONS: Placebo response is influenced by the pain syndrome evaluated. These differences should be considered when evaluating novel compounds for the treatment of neuropathic pain conditions. Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Authors: Ángel Ortega; Juan Salazar; Néstor Galban; Milagros Rojas; Daniela Ariza; Mervin Chávez-Castillo; Manuel Nava; Manuel E Riaño-Garzón; Edgar Alexis Díaz-Camargo; Oscar Medina-Ortiz; Valmore Bermúdez Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2022-04-11 Impact factor: 6.208
Authors: Nanna B Finnerup; Nadine Attal; Simon Haroutounian; Ewan McNicol; Ralf Baron; Robert H Dworkin; Ian Gilron; Maija Haanpää; Per Hansson; Troels S Jensen; Peter R Kamerman; Karen Lund; Andrew Moore; Srinivasa N Raja; Andrew S C Rice; Michael Rowbotham; Emily Sena; Philip Siddall; Blair H Smith; Mark Wallace Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2015-01-07 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Robert R Edwards; Robert H Dworkin; Dennis C Turk; Martin S Angst; Raymond Dionne; Roy Freeman; Per Hansson; Simon Haroutounian; Lars Arendt-Nielsen; Nadine Attal; Ralf Baron; Joanna Brell; Shay Bujanover; Laurie B Burke; Daniel Carr; Amy S Chappell; Penney Cowan; Mila Etropolski; Roger B Fillingim; Jennifer S Gewandter; Nathaniel P Katz; Ernest A Kopecky; John D Markman; George Nomikos; Linda Porter; Bob A Rappaport; Andrew S C Rice; Joseph M Scavone; Joachim Scholz; Lee S Simon; Shannon M Smith; Jeffrey Tobias; Tina Tockarshewsky; Christine Veasley; Mark Versavel; Ajay D Wasan; Warren Wen; David Yarnitsky Journal: Pain Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 7.926
Authors: Gianluca Castelnuovo; Emanuele Maria Giusti; Gian Mauro Manzoni; Donatella Saviola; Samantha Gabrielli; Marco Lacerenza; Giada Pietrabissa; Roberto Cattivelli; Chiara Anna Maria Spatola; Alessandro Rossi; Giorgia Varallo; Margherita Novelli; Valentina Villa; Francesca Luzzati; Andrea Cottini; Carlo Lai; Eleonora Volpato; Cesare Cavalera; Francesco Pagnini; Valentina Tesio; Lorys Castelli; Mario Tavola; Riccardo Torta; Marco Arreghini; Loredana Zanini; Amelia Brunani; Ionathan Seitanidis; Giuseppe Ventura; Paolo Capodaglio; Guido Edoardo D'Aniello; Federica Scarpina; Andrea Brioschi; Matteo Bigoni; Lorenzo Priano; Alessandro Mauro; Giuseppe Riva; Daniele Di Lernia; Claudia Repetto; Camillo Regalia; Enrico Molinari; Paolo Notaro; Stefano Paolucci; Giorgio Sandrini; Susan Simpson; Brenda Kay Wiederhold; Santino Gaudio; Jeffrey B Jackson; Stefano Tamburin; Fabrizio Benedetti Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2018-05-18 Impact factor: 4.003