Low Dose Naltrexone In The Management Of Chronic Pain Syndrome: A Meta-Analysis Of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials.

IF 3.2 2区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Naveen Chandrashekar Hegde, Archana Mishra, Divya V, Rituparna Maiti, Debasish Hota, Anand Srinivasan
{"title":"Low Dose Naltrexone In The Management Of Chronic Pain Syndrome: A Meta-Analysis Of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials.","authors":"Naveen Chandrashekar Hegde, Archana Mishra, Divya V, Rituparna Maiti, Debasish Hota, Anand Srinivasan","doi":"10.1007/s11916-025-01411-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Chronic pain conditions are among the leading causes of years lost to disability. Low Dose Naltrexone (LDN) has anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory properties. LDN, by blocking Toll-Like Receptors (TLR), prevents central sensitization and conversion of acute pain state to a state of chronic pain. This meta-analysis compared LDN's effectiveness in chronic pain syndromes based on published randomized trials.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Seven studies were included after a systematic search and screening from PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, and clinical trial registries. The efficacy outcome analyzed was the standardized mean difference (SMD), the Cohen's d, of change in pain scores between LDN and the comparator drugs using the random-effect model. Subgroup analyses by condition type and comparator were performed to analyze the effect of LDN. Adverse events were evaluated using incidence rate ratio(IRR), publication bias by funnel plot, risk of bias by Cochrane Risk of Bias tool version 2.0, and certainty of evidence by GRADE evaluation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>LDN did not show a significant difference in pain response compared to control groups [d = -0.11 (95%CI -0.96 to 0.74); P = 0.31]. In fibromyalgia, LDN had improvement compared to placebo [d = -0.34 (95%CI -0.62 to -0.06); P = 0.0186]. Against active comparators, LDN had no difference [d = 0.67 (95% CI -4.69 to 6.02); P = 0.35]. Adverse events were increased with LDN compared to placebo [IRR = 1.4 (95% CI 1.12 to 1.75); P = 0.0026] but comparable to active comparators [IRR = 0.55 (95% CI 0.04 to 7.31); P = 0.65].</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>LDN is better than placebo in fibromyalgia pain management, and LDN is similar to active controls in chronic pain management.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration number: </strong>CRD42024511451.</p>","PeriodicalId":50602,"journal":{"name":"Current Pain and Headache Reports","volume":"29 1","pages":"96"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Pain and Headache Reports","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11916-025-01411-1","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Chronic pain conditions are among the leading causes of years lost to disability. Low Dose Naltrexone (LDN) has anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory properties. LDN, by blocking Toll-Like Receptors (TLR), prevents central sensitization and conversion of acute pain state to a state of chronic pain. This meta-analysis compared LDN's effectiveness in chronic pain syndromes based on published randomized trials.

Method: Seven studies were included after a systematic search and screening from PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, and clinical trial registries. The efficacy outcome analyzed was the standardized mean difference (SMD), the Cohen's d, of change in pain scores between LDN and the comparator drugs using the random-effect model. Subgroup analyses by condition type and comparator were performed to analyze the effect of LDN. Adverse events were evaluated using incidence rate ratio(IRR), publication bias by funnel plot, risk of bias by Cochrane Risk of Bias tool version 2.0, and certainty of evidence by GRADE evaluation.

Results: LDN did not show a significant difference in pain response compared to control groups [d = -0.11 (95%CI -0.96 to 0.74); P = 0.31]. In fibromyalgia, LDN had improvement compared to placebo [d = -0.34 (95%CI -0.62 to -0.06); P = 0.0186]. Against active comparators, LDN had no difference [d = 0.67 (95% CI -4.69 to 6.02); P = 0.35]. Adverse events were increased with LDN compared to placebo [IRR = 1.4 (95% CI 1.12 to 1.75); P = 0.0026] but comparable to active comparators [IRR = 0.55 (95% CI 0.04 to 7.31); P = 0.65].

Conclusion: LDN is better than placebo in fibromyalgia pain management, and LDN is similar to active controls in chronic pain management.

Prospero registration number: CRD42024511451.

低剂量纳曲酮治疗慢性疼痛综合征:随机对照临床试验的荟萃分析。
目的:慢性疼痛是导致残疾的主要原因之一。低剂量纳曲酮(LDN)具有抗炎和免疫调节特性。LDN通过阻断toll样受体(TLR),阻止中枢致敏和急性疼痛状态向慢性疼痛状态的转化。本荟萃分析比较了LDN在已发表的随机试验基础上治疗慢性疼痛综合征的有效性。方法:系统检索和筛选PubMed、Embase、Scopus、Cochrane和临床试验注册后,纳入7项研究。采用随机效应模型分析LDN与对照药物疼痛评分变化的标准平均差(SMD),即Cohen’s d。通过病情类型和比较物的亚组分析来分析LDN的效果。不良事件评价采用发生率比(IRR),发表偏倚采用漏斗图,偏倚风险采用Cochrane风险偏倚工具2.0版,证据确定性采用GRADE评价。结果:与对照组相比,LDN组疼痛反应无显著差异[d = -0.11 (95%CI -0.96 ~ 0.74);P = 0.31]。在纤维肌痛中,与安慰剂相比,LDN有改善[d = -0.34 (95%CI -0.62至-0.06);P = 0.0186]。与活性比较物相比,LDN无差异[d = 0.67 (95% CI -4.69至6.02);P = 0.35]。与安慰剂相比,LDN组的不良事件增加[IRR = 1.4 (95% CI 1.12 ~ 1.75);P = 0.0026]但与活性比较物相当[IRR = 0.55 (95% CI 0.04至7.31);P = 0.65]。结论:LDN对纤维肌痛疼痛的治疗效果优于安慰剂,对慢性疼痛的治疗效果与主动对照相似。普洛斯彼罗注册号:CRD42024511451。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Current Pain and Headache Reports
Current Pain and Headache Reports CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
2.70%
发文量
91
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: This journal aims to review the most important, recently published clinical findings regarding the diagnosis, treatment, and management of pain and headache. By providing clear, insightful, balanced contributions by international experts, the journal intends to serve all those involved in the care and prevention of pain and headache. We accomplish this aim by appointing international authorities to serve as Section Editors in key subject areas, such as anesthetic techniques in pain management, cluster headache, neuropathic pain, and migraine. Section Editors, in turn, select topics for which leading experts contribute comprehensive review articles that emphasize new developments and recently published papers of major importance, highlighted by annotated reference lists. An international Editorial Board reviews the annual table of contents, suggests articles of special interest to their country/region, and ensures that topics are current and include emerging research. Commentaries from well-known figures in the field are also provided.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信