RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Chronic neuropathic pain is difficult to treat and is often refractory to most modalities of treatment. Ziconotide is a novel, potent, non-opioid, calcium channel blocking agent which has been shown in clinical trials to be effective in treating chronic neuropathic pain. METHODS: EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus and Web of Science electronic databases were searched for English language studies. Reference sections of articles were examined for further papers and the manufacturer of ziconotide was contacted for further unpublished data. Three randomised controlled trials in ziconotide monotherapy were included and subjected to a random effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: All three studies used the similar main outcome measure (visual analogue scale of pain intensity; VASPI) and were therefore comparable. A Jadad score was performed for each paper. Frequent serious adverse events (SAEs) were observed which resulted in two of the studies revising the protocol. The metaanalysis revealed a pooled odds ratio (responders on ziconotide vs. placebo) of 2.77 (95% CI, 1.37 to 5.59). DISCUSSION: The results suggest that ziconotide is beneficial for pain reduction in chronic neuropathic pain. However, there remain some methodological issues that may call into question the validity of the results. It is evident that more work needs to be conducted to further validate the efficacy of ziconotide and to discover new areas of use.
Asunto(s)
Analgésicos no Narcóticos/uso terapéutico , Dolor Crónico/tratamiento farmacológico , Neuralgia/tratamiento farmacológico , omega-Conotoxinas/uso terapéutico , Analgésicos no Narcóticos/efectos adversos , Bloqueadores de los Canales de Calcio/efectos adversos , Bloqueadores de los Canales de Calcio/uso terapéutico , Humanos , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , omega-Conotoxinas/efectos adversosRESUMEN
Objective: Intrathecal drug delivery (ITDD) is commonly used for intractable pain management. A paucity of good-quality studies in chronic noncancer patients and concerns over increased dosages have focused interest on different modes of administration. The aim of this international multicenter randomized double-blind crossover trial was to compare the efficacy of the same daily dose of drugs administered by intermittent boluses vs simple continuous infusion. Methods: Eligible patients implanted with a programmable ITDD device were randomized to receive two weeks of either intermittent boluses or a simple continuous flow in period 1, followed by a crossover to the alternative mode of administration. The primary outcome measure was the Patients' Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scale. Results: The mean proportion of positive responders (at least "minimally improved") was 38.4% in the continuous condition vs 37.3% in the bolus (difference in proportions = 1.1%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -21.8-24.0%, P = 0.93). The mean PGIC in the continuous condition was 3.8 vs 3.9 in the bolus (mean difference = -0.1, -0.6-0.4, P = 0.72). Exploratory analyses revealed a tendency for the mean proportion of positive responders to be higher at low vs high flow rates for both bolus and continuous administrations. Two patients were withdrawn from the study due to adverse events during the bolus phase, both with symptoms of increased pain, and one patient with additional symptoms of numbness and urinary retention. Conclusion: The mean PGIC and proportion of positive responders was not substantially different after intermittent bolus vs continuous administration.