Topical clonidine for neuropathic pain (Review)

被引:35
作者
Wrzosek, Anna [1 ]
Woron, Jaroslaw [2 ,3 ]
Dobrogowski, Jan [4 ]
Jakowicka-Wordliczek, Joanna [1 ]
Wordliczek, Jerzy [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Hosp, Dept Anaesthesiol & Intens Care 1, PL-31501 Krakow, Poland
[2] Jagiellonian Univ, Coll Med, Dept Clin Pharmacol, Krakow, Poland
[3] Jagiellonian Univ, Coll Med, Dept Pain Treatment & Palliat Care, Krakow, Poland
[4] Jagiellonian Univ, Coll Med, Dept Pain Res & Therapy, Krakow, Poland
来源
COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS | 2015年 / 08期
关键词
QUALITY-OF-LIFE; INTRATHECAL CLONIDINE; TRANSDERMAL CLONIDINE; TRIGEMINAL NEURALGIA; ENRICHED ENROLLMENT; DIABETIC-NEUROPATHY; EPIDURAL CLONIDINE; TREATMENT OUTCOMES; CLINICAL-TRIALS; SPINAL-CORD;
D O I
10.1002/14651858.CD010967.pub2
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background Clonidine is a presynaptic alpha-2-adrenergic receptor agonist used for many years to treat hypertension and other conditions, including chronic pain. Adverse events associated with systemic use of the drug have limited its application. Topical use of drugs is currently gaining interest, as it may limit adverse events without loss of analgesic efficacy. Topical clonidine (TC) formulations have been investigated recently in clinical trials. Objectives The objectives of this review were to assess the analgesic efficacy of TC for chronic neuropathic pain in adults and to assess the frequency of adverse events associated with clinical use of TC for chronic neuropathic pain. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS) Online (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL)), MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, reference lists of retrieved papers and trial registries, and we contacted experts in the field. We performed the most recent search on 17 September 2014. Selection criteria We included randomised, double-blind studies of at least two weeks' duration comparing TC versus placebo or other active treatment in patients with chronic neuropathic pain. Data collection and analysis Two review authors extracted data from the studies and assessed bias. We planned three tiers of evidence analysis. The first tier was designed to analyse data meeting current best standards, by which studies reported the outcome of at least 50% pain intensity reduction over baseline (or its equivalent) without use of the last observation carried forward or other imputation method for dropouts, reported an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, lasted eight weeks or longer, had a parallel-group design and included at least 200 participants (preferably at least 400) in the comparison. The second tier was designed to use data from at least 200 participants but in cases in which one of the above conditions was not met. The third tier of evidence was assumed in other situations.
引用
收藏
页数:36
相关论文
共 90 条
[1]  
Aley KO, 1997, J NEUROSCI, V17, P735
[2]  
[Anonymous], COCHRANE DATABASE SY
[3]  
[Anonymous], CURRENT OPINION ANAE
[4]  
[Anonymous], CURRENT OPINION ANAE
[5]  
[Anonymous], DIABETIC NEUROPATHY
[6]  
[Anonymous], 2007, HLTH CARE NEEDS ASSE
[7]  
[Anonymous], COCHRANE DATABASE SY
[8]  
[Anonymous], PAPAS AUTH REF GUID
[9]  
[Anonymous], REV MAN REVMAN 5 3
[10]  
[Anonymous], COCHRANE DATABASE SY