Skip to main content

Palliation: Introduction

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
  • 854 Accesses

Abstract

Central pain (CP) remains one of the most ill-treated entities among chronic pain syndromes. No drug is substantially effective in a majority of patients, despite claims to the contrary by the pharma industry and regulatory agencies. Apparently, significant treatment effects reported in pharma-sponsored trials would have been much smaller or absent, and large high-quality trials have been conducted. Worse still, published papers are often marketing disguised as scientific papers [1, 2], and systematic reviews often “cause research waste” [3, 4]. Indeed, the vast majority (85%) of investment in health research is simply wasted [5]. Thus, it comes as no surprise that many treatments that are now considered first-line are associated with minimal relief (Cardenas and Jensen 2006). A large Swedish study found that, for mostly peripheral neuropathic pain, the most common first prescription is amitriptyline (40%) followed by pregabalin (22%) and gabapentin (19%): more than half of the patients discontinued treatment after 3 months and 60–70% at 6 months, with modestly better results with duloxetine and venlafaxine [6]. A prospective observational study found that standard guidelines as applied at academic centers are ineffective. Out of 80 CP patients (CPSP 11, SCI 47, and other 22; 53 patients available for analysis), only 11.3% (!) reached ≥30% relief at 2 years and 1 point reduction on the BPI/interference scale, and the vast majority experienced side effects from all classes of drugs [7].

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Landefeld CS, Steinman MA. The Neurontin legacy: marketing through misinformation and manipulation. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:103–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Steinman MA, Bero LA, Chren MM, Landefeld CS. Narrative review: the promotion of gabapentin: an analysis of internal industry documents. Ann Intern Med. 2006;145(4):284–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Egger M, Juni P, Bartlett C, Holenstein F, Sterne J. How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7(1):1–76.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Roberts I, Ker K. How systematic reviews cause research waste. Lancet. 2015;386(10003):1536.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet. 2009;374(9683):86–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cardenas DD, Jensen MP. Treatments for chronic pain in persons with spinal cord injury: A survey study. J Spinal Cord Med. 2006;29(2):109–17.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Gustavsson A, Bjorkman J, Ljungcrantz C, Rhodin A, Rivano-Fischer M, Sjolund KF, Mannheimer C. Pharmacological treatment patterns in neuropathic pain—lessons from Swedish administrative registries. Pain Med. 2013;14(7):1072–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Moulin DE, Clark AJ, Gordon A, Lynch M, Morley-Forster PK, Nathan H, Smyth C, Toth C, VanDenKerkhof E, Gilani A, Ware MA. Long-term outcome of the management of chronic neuropathic pain: a prospective observational study. J Pain. 2015;16(9):852–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Campsall P, Colizza K, Straus S, Stelfox HT. Financial relationships between organizations that produce clinical practice guidelines and the biomedical industry: a cross-sectional study. PLoS Med. 2016;13(5):e1002029.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Ausman JI. How do you know what you read or hear is the truth? Surg Neurol Int. 2014;5:132.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Ahn R, Woodbridge A, Abraham A, Saba S, Korenstein D, Madden E, Boscardin WJ, Keyhani S. Financial ties of principal investigators and randomized controlled trial outcomes: cross sectional study. BMJ. 2017;356:i6770.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Falagas ME, Pitsouni EI, Malietzis GA, Pappas G. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J. 2008;22(2):338–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Huser V, Cimino JJ. Linking ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed to track results of interventional human clinical trials. PLoS One. 2013;8(7):e68409.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Canavero, S., Bonicalzi, V. (2018). Palliation: Introduction. In: Central Pain Syndrome. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56765-5_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56765-5_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-56764-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-56765-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics