Background & Aims
Chronic pain is a multifaceted condition with distinct clinical features, and requires nuanced treatment strategies. Understanding the physiology of specific clinical features of chronic pain, such as secondary hypersensitivity, is crucial for developing effective treatments. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we investigated the effects of pharmacological manipulations on magnitude (change/difference in follow-up ratings from pre-manipulation ratings; primary outcome) and surface area (secondary outcome) of experimentally induced secondary hypersensitivity.
Methods
This systematic review and meta-analysis was planned and conducted according to Cochrane Collaboration1 guidelines and a published2 and registered protocol (PROSPERO CRD42020146486). We conducted an electronic search on 07 February 2024, and after independently screening the articles in duplicate, we included 117 articles, consisting of 222 datasets. Risk of bias assessments were independently conducted in duplicate to assess the quality of the methods and identify potential flaws in the study design or reporting that might render the results unreliable for the purposes of answering the question of the current review3. Datasets were pooled by the mechanism of action of the manipulation and by outcome. To estimate effect sizes from available data, we calculated standardised mean difference and used random effects models.
Results
Most datasets (207 of 222) had an unclear risk of performance and detection bias for inadequate reporting of blinding procedures. Thirteen different methods were used to induce secondary hypersensitivity. Of the 222 datasets, nine assessed only magnitude, 175 assessed only surface area, and 38 assessed both magnitude and surface area. The most commonly used manipulations were: opioid receptor agonist (n=45 datasets), N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist (n=40), voltage-gated sodium channel (VGSC) blocker (n=28), alpha-2-delta subunit of voltage-gated calcium channel (VGCC) ligands (n=21). For magnitude, NMDA receptor antagonists and VGSC blockers had ambiguous effects as seen in both narrative and meta-analytical results. Alpha-2-delta subunit of VGCC ligands had a pooled effect size ranging from of medium (-0.39) to negligible (-0.08). For surface area, the results of the narrative analysis for NMDA receptor antagonists, alpha-2-delta subunit of VGCC ligands and VGSC blockers were all ambiguous. However, for NMDA receptor antagonists, the pooled effect estimate was a consistent decrease in surface area, but the effect size ranged from large (-1.60) to small (-0.17). For alpha-2-delta subunit of VGCC ligands, the pooled estimated effect was a consistent decrease, but the effect size had a large range from medium (-0.59) to small (-0.18) (Fig 9). Similarly, for VGSC blockers the pooled estimated effect was a consistent decrease, with the effect size ranging from very large effect (-1.63) to a medium effect (-0.42). Lastly, opioid receptor agonists had ambiguous effects, as seen in both narrative and meta-analytical results.
Conclusions
In summary, there was limited evidence that NMDA receptor antagonists, alpha-2-delta subunit of VGCC ligands, VGSC blockers and opioid receptor agonists can decrease the surface area of SH, and that alpha-2-delta subunit of VGCC ligands can decrease the magnitude of SH. All pooled estimates showed imprecision, and risk of bias assessments revealed problems with reporting that prevented thorough assessment of rigour. Therefore, we can have low confidence that these four classes of manipulations can reliably decrease experimentally induced SH.
In summary, there was limited evidence that NMDA receptor antagonists, alpha-2-delta subunit of VGCC ligands, VGSC blockers and opioid receptor agonists can decrease the surface area of SH, and that alpha-2-delta subunit of VGCC ligands can decrease the magnitude of SH. All pooled estimates showed imprecision, and risk of bias assessments revealed problems with reporting that prevented thorough assessment of rigour. Therefore, we can have low confidence that these four classes of manipulations can reliably decrease experimentally induced SH.
References
- Higgins JP, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. vol 4. John Wiley & Sons; 2011.
- Madden VJ, Bedwell GJ, Chikezie PC, Rice AS, Kamerman PR. A systematic review of experimental methods to manipulate secondary hyperalgesia in humans: protocol. Systematic reviews. 2019;8(1):1-6. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1120-7
- Lundh A, Gøtzsche PC. Recommendations by Cochrane Review Groups for assessment of the risk of bias in studies. BMC medical research methodology. 2008;8(1):22. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-22
Presenting Author
Gillian J Bedwell
Poster Authors
Gillian J Bedwell, MSc
African Pain Research Initiative, Department of Anaesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, Neuroscience Institute, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, Western Cape, South Africa
Lead Author
Luyanduthando Mqadi
BSc
African Pain Research Initiative, Department of Anaesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, Neuroscience Institute, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, Western Cape, South Africa
Lead Author
Prince C Chikezie
BHSc
Brain Function Research Group, School of Physiology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, Gauteng, South Africa
Lead Author
Mark Hutchinson
School of Biomedicine, University of Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
Lead Author
Peter Kamerman
Brain Function Research Group, School of Physiology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, Gauteng, South Africa
Lead Author
Romy Parker
African Pain Research Initiative, Department of Anaesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, Neuroscience Institute, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, Western Cape, South Africa
Lead Author
Andrew Rice
Pain Research Group, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK
Lead Author
Victoria Madden
African Pain Research Initiative, Department of Anaesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, Neuroscience Institute, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, Western Cape, South Africa
Lead Author
Topics
- Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analysis