4.7 Review

Combination Therapy for Neuropathic Pain: A Review of Recent Evidence

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 10, 期 16, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm10163533

关键词

neuropathic pain; combination therapy; pharmacotherapy; randomized control trial

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite the widespread adoption of multimodal analgesic treatment for neuropathic pain, there is still a lack of sufficient high-quality evidence regarding its effectiveness, tolerability, and safety. While recent research has attempted to provide new insights into this area, the overall quality of evidence has not shown significant improvement in recent years.
Pharmacological treatment is not very effective for neuropathic pain (NP). A progressive decrease in the estimated effect of NP drugs has been reported, giving rise to an increase in the use of the multimodal analgesic approach. We performed a new independent review to assess whether more and better-quality evidence has become available since the last systematic review. We evaluated the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of double-blinded randomized controlled trials involving only adult participants and comparing combination therapy (CT: >= 2 drugs) with a placebo and/or at least one other comparator with an NP indication. The primary outcome assessed was the proportion of participants reporting >= 50% pain reductions from baseline. The secondary outcome assessed was the proportion of drop-outs due to treatment-emergent adverse events. After removing duplicates, 2323 citations were screened, with 164 articles assessed for eligibility, from which 16 were included for qualitative analysis. From the latter, only five lasted for at least 12 weeks and only six complied with the required data for complete analysis. CT has been adopted for years without robust evidence. Efforts have been made to achieve better-quality evidence, but the quality has not improved over the years. In this regard, guidelines for NP should attempt to make recommendations about CT research, prioritizing which combinations to analyze.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据