Next Article in Journal
Abnormalities in Regional Cerebral Blood Flow Due to Headache in a COVID-19 Infected Patient Observed on 99mTC-ECD Brain SPECT/CT
Previous Article in Journal
Onset Mechanisms and Prognosis of Neurally Mediated Syncope
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Reports
Volume 6
Issue 4
10.3390/reports6040057
reports-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Safety of Drug Treatment in Patients with Neuropathic Pain: Data from Ambulatory Care in a Real-Life Setting

by
Cristina Vocca
1,
Vincenzo Rania
1,
Antonio Siniscalchi
2,
Caterina Palleria
1,3,
Gianmarco Marcianò
1,
Cecilia Galati
3,
Luca Catarisano
1,
Valentina Mastrangelo
1,
Franco Corasaniti
4,
Francesco Monea
3,
Lucia Muraca
4,
Rita Citraro
1,3,5,
Bruno D’Agostino
6,
Luca Gallelli
1,3,5,7,* and
Giovambattista De Sarro
1,3,5
1
Pain Medicine Room, Complex Operative Unit of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacovigilance, Renato Dulbecco University Hospital, 88100 Catanzaro, Italy
2
Department of Neurology and Stroke Unit, Annunziata Hospital of Cosenza, 87100 Cosenza, Italy
3
Research Center FAS@UMG, Department of Health Science, Magna Graecia University, 88100 Catanzaro, Italy
4
Department of Primary Care, ASP Catanzaro, 88100 Catanzaro, Italy
5
Department of Health Science, Magna Graecia University, 88100 Catanzaro, Italy
6
Department of Environmental Biological and Pharmaceutical Sciences and Technologies, University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”, 81100 Caserta, Italy
7
Medifarmagen SRL, Renato Dulbecco University Hospital, 88100 Catanzaro, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Reports 2023, 6(4), 57; https://doi.org/10.3390/reports6040057
Submission received: 24 October 2023 / Revised: 23 November 2023 / Accepted: 24 November 2023 / Published: 1 December 2023
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Introduction: Drug treatment can be related to the development of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Aim: In this paper, we evaluated ADRs in patients admitted to the Ambulatory of Pain Medicine of the University Hospital Renato Dulbecco in Catanzaro. Methods: We conducted a prospective analysis between 1 February 2021 and 20 July 2023 on patients with neuropathic pain referred to the Ambulatory of Pain Medicine of “Renato Dulbecco” University Hospital in Catanzaro (Calabria, Italy). Patients aged >18 years with clinical signs of neurologic pain and a score upon completing the Douleur Neuropathique en 4 Questions (DN4) questionnaire of ≥4 were included. The association between drugs and ADR or between drugs and drug–drug-interactions (DDIs) was evaluated using Naranjo’s probability scale and Drug Interaction Probability Scale (DIPS), respectively. Results: During the study period, we analyzed 2370 patients referred to the ambulatory of pain medicine. After the evaluation of inclusion and exclusion criteria, 33.5% of patients were enrolled. All patients presented at least one comorbidity and daily used a mean of five drugs (range 3–11). Using the Naranjo score, the development of ADRs was documented in 112 patients (score 6). Using parametric and non-parametric statistical analysis, we failed to report an association between ADR and dosage or ADR and patient characteristics. Conclusion: Our results show the development of ADRs in 18% of patients with neuropathic pain. This low percentage of drug interaction could be a limitation in real life because it is probably due to the site of the study and the appropriate prescription of drugs. Therefore, it shows that it is necessary to motivate healthcare to pay attention to the prescription of drugs in poly-treated patients to reduce the risk of ADRs.

1. Introduction

The International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) defines neuropathic pain as pain caused by a lesion or disease of the somatosensory nervous system [1].
In a recent review of international guidelines and recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain [2], we reported that first-line drugs with a moderate-to-high quality of evidence and strong recommendation are tricyclic antidepressants (TCA, e.g., amitriptyline), antiepileptics (α2δ calcium channel unit blockers, pregabalin, and gabapentin), and serotonin noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRI: duloxetine and venlafaxine). Capsaicin 8% patches, lidocaine patches, and subcutaneous injections of botulinum toxin type A have weak recommendations and are indicated for peripheral neuropathic pain only [2]. Finally, even if opioids have not been recommended in the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain due to the development of serious adverse drug reactions (ADRs), some authors have suggested that tramadol could be used in the management of neuropathic pain [3,4,5,6,7].
ADRs represent a serious problem during the treatment of patients with pain (i.e., anticholinergic effects for tricyclic antidepressants [8], abuse and misuse of gabapentinoids in patients using opioids [9], and constipation during opioid treatment [10].
Meaadi et al. studied the safety and efficacy of gabapentinoids in the management of neuropathic pain as follows: a systematic review with the meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
These reduce patients’ compliance [11,12,13]. To reduce the development of ADRs, which could be also related to the dosage and the long duration of treatment, a non-pharmacological treatment has been suggested. Nutrients are commonly used in patients with pain, e.g., Acetyl-L-carnitine [14,15,16,17,18,19,20], palmitoylethanolamide (PEA) [21,22,23,24,25,26,27], and alpha-lipoic acid [28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35].
However, local techniques, e.g., high-intensity low-frequency-pulsed magnetic fields (diamagnetic therapy) or the administration of oxygen–ozone therapy, could represent an add-on treatment in the management of neuropathic pain [36,37,38,39,40].
The aim of this study was to evaluate, in a real-life ambulatory care study, both the development and the characteristics of ADRs in patients with neuropathic pain.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

We conducted a prospective study between 1 February 2021 and 20 July 2023 on patients with neuropathic pain who were referred to the Ambulatory of Pain Medicine of “Renato Dulbecco” University Hospital in Catanzaro (Calabria, Italy). The study, approved by the Ethics Committee (Calabria Centro: number 22/2021), was carried out according to the Good Clinical Practice guidelines and under the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Before the beginning of this study, all participants signed a written informed consent form.

2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

We enrolled patients aged >18 years with clinical signs of neurologic pain and a score from the Douleur Neuropathique en 4 Questions (DN4) questionnaire of ≥4. Patients with less than two clinical accesses to the ambulatory were excluded.
Exclusion criteria included current patients with nociceptive pain or nociplastic pain, patients with Alzheimer’s disease, and patients with active cancer. Moreover, patients who did not sign the informed consent were excluded.

2.3. Protocol

Consecutive patients were referred to the Ambulatory of Pain of Medicine of the University of Catanzaro for chronic pain, and were screened for neuropathic pain using both clinical tests and the DN4 questionnaire. In agreement with inclusion and exclusion criteria, patients were enrolled in this study and signed informed consent forms. During the admission, demographic data, comorbidity, polytherapy, the drug used and dosage, previous ADRs, and the intensity of pain (using the Numerical rating scale, NRS) were collected. Each patient was asked if he or she could evaluate his or her level of pain on a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 equaled an absence of pain and 10 indicated the maximum level.
The DN4 is a clinician-administered, neuropathic pain diagnostic questionnaire consisting of ten items grouped in four sections evaluating the quality of pain (burning, painful cold, electric shocks) and its association with abnormal sensations (tingling, pins and needles, numbness, itching). A score ≥ 4 was suggestive of neuropathic pain.
The ADRs correlated to the treatment were evaluated using the Naranjo probability scale, which is in agreement with our previous studies [41,42].
The Naranjo probability scale is a validated scale used to classify the probability that an adverse event is related to drug therapy based on a list of weighted questions, which examine factors such as the temporal association of drug administration and event occurrence, alternative causes for the event, drug levels, dose–response relationships and previous patient experience with the medication. A score of 1–4 suggested the possible correlation between the drug and ADR, a score of 5–8 represented a probable correlation, and a score >8 indicated a certain correlation [42,43,44].
Collected data were then stored in an Access database with security code protection.

2.4. Endpoints

The primary endpoint was the development of ADRs during the treatment of neuropathic pain. The secondary endpoint was the correlation between ADRs and age, comorbidity, and polytherapy in men and women with neuropathic pain.

2.5. Statistical Analyses

Data are presented as the mean ± standard deviation (SD). For categorical parameters, the chi-square test was used. Student’s t-test and the Kruskal–Wallis test were used for non-parametric variables. The Shapiro–Wilk test was used to evaluate the normality of distribution. Pearson’s test and Sperman’s test were used for the correlation study. Logistic regression was performed to evaluate the influence of different factors on pain levels. p-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 22.0 (International Business Machines Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Demographic and Clinical Characteristics

During the study, we analyzed 2370 patients (men: 900, age 59.7 ± 11.6; women 1470, mean age 60.3 ± 11.9). After the evaluation of inclusion and exclusion criteria evaluation, 912 patients (38.5%, mean age 61.4 ± 13; 328 men and 584 women, mean age 60.6 ± 13.4 and 61.8 ± 12.9) with neuropathic pain were enrolled (Figure 1) (Table 1).
Statistical evaluation failed to show a significant difference between men and women with respect to age, instruction level, and smoking history (p > 0.05). Evaluating the patients stratified by age, we documented that 133 men (59.4%) and 251 women (57%) were enrolled in the group 18–64 years, while 195 men (40.6%) and 333 women (43%) were in the group > 65 years. Statistical evaluation did not document a significant difference between these groups for age, BMI, DN-4, NRS, degree, or smokers (Table 2).
Of the 912 enrolled patients, 886 patients (97.2%, mean age 61.7 ± 12.9) had at least one comorbidity (men 313, mean age 61.4 ± 13; women 573, mean age 61.9 ± 13); the most common were diabetes and osteoarthritis (Table 2). Psychiatric, rheumatologic, and orthopedic diseases were significantly more common in women (Table 2).
Concerning the comorbidity, we documented that diabetes was the most common comorbidity in the group 18–64 years (men 55.3%, women 55.4%, p > 0.05) and in elderly men (73.1%), while cardiovascular diseases and osteoarthritis were the most common comorbidities in elderly women (83.7%) (Table 3).
Moreover, we documented a statistically significant difference between men and women for the presence of urological diseases (elderly men’s group, p < 0.01), rheumatological diseases (women’s groups, p < 0.01), and psychiatric diseases (elderly women’s group, p < 0.01) (Table 2). All enrolled patients of both sexes and in both groups used drugs for pain treatment (Table 2 and Table 3).

3.2. ADRs

During the study, 164 patients (18%), including 67 men (40.7%) and 97 women (59.4%) developed ADRs (Table 4).
The statistical evaluation did not show any significant difference between men and women regarding age, BMI, DN4, degree, or if they were smokers (Table 4). Evaluating the comorbidities, we documented that women had a significant increase in neurological and rheumatologic diseases compared to men (p < 0.05) (Table 4).
Moreover, considering the gender differences between the patients with and without ADRs, we did not record any statistical difference between the patients who developed ADRs and those who did not (Table 5).
When we considered the difference between men and women with and without ADRs, we documented that smoking was most common in patients with ADRs compared to patients without ADRs (p < 0.01), without differences between men and women (Table 6). Considering the comorbidity, we recorded that rheumatological diseases and renal diseases were common in men with ADRs compared to men without (p < 0.01), while urological diseases were common in women with ADRs compared to women without (Table 7).
Considering the drugs involved in the development of ADRs, even if we documented a probable association between drugs and ADRs (Naranjo score: 6), we failed to record a significant correlation between the drug used and their dosages (Table 8).
We did not find any significant difference between the drugs used in patients with ADRs and patients without (Table 9).
The evaluation of the treatments involved in ADRs failed to identify a difference between men and women (p = 0.115). Moreover. the use of Pearson’s test failed to show a correlation between age, sex, degree, BMI, drug dosage, and ADRs (Table 10). The same result was recorded using multiple logistic regression analysis. The evaluation of ADRs documented that 1 patient (a man, smoker, 68-year-old, BMI 28.4) developed stypsis, confusion, and somnolence during polytherapy (Table 11). Similarly, six women developed more than one ADR during polytherapy.
Finally, the Pearson test did not show a correlation between polytherapy and ADRs (r: 0.02358).

4. Discussion

In this prospective study performed in the ambulatory care real-life setting, we evaluated both the types and the characteristics of ADRs to pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments used to treat neuropathic pain.
Neuropathic pain is a chronic manifestation in which several clinical conditions (e.g., diabetes, inflammation, viral infections, injury) are able to induce a neuronal lesion with continuous neural activation.
Therefore, drugs able to modulate neural activation (e.g., channel blockers and modulators of neurotransmitter pathways) are commonly used [2].
In our study, we enrolled consecutive patients who were referred to the Pain Medicine Ambulatory of our University Hospital of General Practitioners for neuropathic pain. History and clinical evaluation documented that these patients (men and women) had suffered from low back pain or cervicobrachial pain for several years, and all these patients received treatment, commonly opioids since international guidelines suggest that opioids are not the first line of treatment. This could be related to the idea that drugs must be used for pain intensity management more than for the type of pain.
Moreover, a clinical evaluation documented that 92.3% of enrolled men and 100% of enrolled women presented a comorbidity, commonly in both sexes, diabetes, and osteoarthritis.
This agrees with data from the literature reporting that osteoarthritis and diabetes mellitus are associated in the same patients [45,46]. Louati et al. [47], in a systemic review, documented the high prevalence of osteoarthritis among patients with diabetes mellitus (29.5 ± 1.2%) and of diabetes mellitus among patients with osteoarthritis (14.4 ± 0.1%). Moreover, in our study, we recorded a high prevalence of urological diseases in men and rheumatological diseases in women, as also reported in data from the literature [48].
The presence of comorbidity or polytherapy must be considered in patients with pain because both diabetes and rheumatological diseases can impair pain levels. Similarly, the presence of urological or renal diseases can reduce renal activity; therefore, in these patients, the treatment must appropriate in order to reduce the risk of ADRs [49,50,51,52,53].
Both ADRs and inappropriate therapy represent a major concern in clinical practice because they can reduce adherence to the treatment [54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61], increasing health costs [49,62,63,64,65].
In this study, we documented that 18% of enrolled patients developed ADRs without a difference with respect to sex and without any correlation with respect to BMI, age, study, or other demographic characteristics. Moreover, we failed to report a correlation between ADRs and the DN4 score, and in all patients, the Naranjo score documented a probable association between drugs and ADRs.
The most common drugs involved in ADRs were opioids, and this is related to the low safety of these drugs. Moreover, it is important to remember that opioids are no longer recommended for the treatment of most patients with chronic pain. In fact, Nury et al. [66], reviewing data from the literature suggested that long-term opioid therapy (≥6 months) in chronic non-cancer pain may not be superior to nonopioids in improving pain or disability or pain-related functions but seems to be associated with more adverse events, opioid abuse or dependence, and possibly an increase in all-cause mortality.
We documented that opioid use induced the development of stypsis and mild CNS effects (e.g., somnolence and confusion), as described in drug labels [67,68,69,70]. Similar CNS effects were recorded during the treatment with pregabalin and antidepressants [71,72].
Pregabalin and duloxetine are commonly used in the management of neuropathic pain and represent the first line of treatment [2]. Their effects in the management of neuropathic pain can be related to the block of neural depolarization (pregabalin) and to the potentiation of the inhibitory pathway (duloxetine). These mechanisms induce the development of central side effects that could be reduced by starting with a low dosage and not using drugs that are able to induce CNS inhibition. In our study, we recorded that pregabalin was used with a high first dosage (125 or 150 mg daily) even if the total dosage was similar to the patients who did not develop ADRs. Duloxetine was co-administered with opioids that can induce CNS inhibition.
During this study, we reported fewer side effects in patients using nutraceuticals and oxygen–ozone therapy. These produce a very interesting result for physicians, especially considering the great efficacy of oxygen–ozone therapy [73,74,75,76,77,78].
Moreover, Magalhaes et al. [79], analyzing data from the literature in patients with low back pain secondary to disc herniation treated with oxygen–ozone therapy, documented both the safety and the efficacy of oxygen–ozone with evidence of the level II-3 for ozone therapy applied intradiscally and II-1 for ozone therapy applied paravertebrally (recommendation: 1C for ozone therapy applied intradiscally; 1B for ozone applied at the paravertebral muscles).
Diamagnetic therapy and acetyl-L-carnitine had no side effects, showing an excellent safety profile, according to previous experience and the label [36,80].
Our study has several limitations. Firstly, the number of patients is relatively small to draw definitive conclusions, and the number of women is high in comparison to men, even if the real-life setting is characterized by a high number of women coming to our ambulatory in comparison to men. Data were obtained in a clinical room of pain medicine where specialists in clinical pharmacology performed diagnosis and treatment, and this probably reduced the development of ADRs, also related to the comorbidity, polytherapy, level of instructions, and smoke. We used diamagnetic therapy, which is not a pharmacological treatment, but we reported it because we use it in some patients as an add-on therapy to reduce the dosage of drug treatment.
In conclusion, we documented that drugs used in the management of neuropathic pain are usually safe and, if prescribed appropriately, do not induce the development of severe ADRs or drug interactions.

Author Contributions

Methodology, C.V., G.M., L.C., V.M., F.C. and R.C.; Software, G.M., L.C. and R.C.; Validation, L.M., R.C. and B.D.; Formal analysis, V.R., A.S., C.P., G.M., C.G. and B.D.; Investigation, V.R., C.V., A.S., C.P., C.G., V.M., F.C. and F.M.; Resources, G.D.S.; Data curation, A.S., C.P., C.G., L.C., F.C., F.M. and L.G.; Writing—original draft, A.S., G.M., C.G., R.C. and B.D.; Writing—review and editing, L.G.; Supervision, G.D.S.; Funding acquisition, G.D.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinkihas, and approved by the Ethical Committee “Calabria Centro” (protocol number 22/2021, date 21 January 2021).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy.

Conflicts of Interest

Dr. Francesco Monea is a private medical doctor working in his private study (https://www.studiomedicomonea.com/). In this research the enrolled patients did not pay for visit, diagnosis or treatment during the first evaluation as well as during the follow-up(s). All other authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

References

  1. IASP International Association for the Study of Pain—Terminology. Available online: https://www.iasp-pain.org/resources/terminology/ (accessed on 18 June 2023).
  2. Marcianò, G.; Vocca, C.; Evangelista, M.; Palleria, C.; Muraca, L.; Galati, C.; Monea, F.; Sportiello, L.; De Sarro, G.; Capuano, A.; et al. The Pharmacological Treatment of Chronic Pain: From Guidelines to Daily Clinical Practice. Pharmaceutics 2023, 15, 1165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Attal, N.; Bouhassira, D. Translational neuropathic pain research. Pain 2019, 160, S23–S28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Kawai, S.; Hasegawa, J.; Ito, H.; Fukuuchi, Y.; Nakano, H.; Ohtani, H.; Sasaki, K.; Adachi, T. Efficacy and safety of twice-daily tramadol hydrochloride bilayer sustained-release tablets with an immediate release component for postherpetic neuralgia: Results of a Phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, treatment-withdrawal study. Pain Pract. 2023, 23, 277–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Duehmke, R.M.; Derry, S.; Wiffen, P.J.; Bell, R.F.; Aldington, D.; Moore, R.A. Tramadol for neuropathic pain in adults. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2017, 2017, 1–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Subedi, M.; Bajaj, S.; Kumar, M.S.; YC, M. An overview of tramadol and its usage in pain management and future perspective. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2019, 111, 443–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bravo, L.; Mico, J.A.; Berrocoso, E. Discovery and development of tramadol for the treatment of pain. Expert. Opin. Drug Discov. 2017, 12, 1281–1291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Brueckle, M.S.; Thomas, E.T.; Seide, S.E.; Pilz, M.; Gonzalez-Gonzalez, A.I.; Dinh, T.S.; Gerlach, F.M.; Harder, S.; Glasziou, P.P.; Muth, C. Amitriptyline’s anticholinergic adverse drug reactions—A systematic multiple-indication review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 2023, 18, e0284168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Evoy, K.E.; Morrison, M.D.; Saklad, S.R. Abuse and Misuse of Pregabalin and Gabapentin. Drugs 2017, 77, 403–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Rivera, I.V.; Clavarana, L.V.; Velasco, P.G.; Ramos, C.M. Opioid-induced constipation in chronic pain: Experience with 180 patients. J. Opioid. Manag. 2019, 15, 69–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Cavalli, E.; Mammana, S.; Nicoletti, F.; Bramanti, P.; Mazzon, E. The neuropathic pain: An overview of the current treatment and future therapeutic approaches. Int. J. Immunopathol. Pharmacol. 2019, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Clayton, A.; Kornstein, S.; Prakash, A.; Mallinckrodt, C.; Wohlreich, M. Changes in sexual functioning associated with duloxetine, escitalopram, and placebo in the treatment of patients with major depressive disorder. J. Sex. Med. 2007, 4, 917–929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Bozkurt, M.; Gocmez, C.; Soylemez, H.; Daggulli, M.; Em, S.; Yildiz, M.; Atar, M.; Bozkurt, Y.; Ozbey, I. Association between neuropathic pain, pregabalin treatment, and erectile dysfunction. J. Sex. Med. 2014, 11, 1816–1822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Sarzi-Puttini, P.; Giorgi, V.; Di Lascio, S.; Fornasari, D. Acetyl-L-carnitine in chronic pain: A narrative review. Pharmacol. Res. 2021, 173, 105874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Frediani, J.K.; Lal, A.A.; Kim, E.; Leslie, S.L.; Boorman, D.W.; Singh, V. The role of diet and non-pharmacologic supplements in the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain: A systematic review. Pain Pract. 2023. Online ahead of a print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Onofrj, M.; Ciccocioppo, F.; Varanese, S.; Di Muzio, A.; Calvani, M.; Chiechio, S.; Osio, M.; Thomas, A. Acetyl-L-carnitine: From a biological curiosity to a drug for the peripheral nervous system and beyond. Expert. Rev. Neurother. 2013, 13, 925–936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. D’Egidio, F.; Lombardozzi, G.; Kacem Ben Haj M’Barek, H.E.; Mastroiacovo, G.; Alfonsetti, M.; Cimini, A. The Influence of Dietary Supplementations on Neuropathic Pain. Life 2022, 12, 1125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Chiechio, S.; Copani, A.; Iv, R.W.G.; Nicoletti, F. Acetyl-L-carnitine in neuropathic pain: Experimental data. CNS Drugs 2007, 21, 31–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Di Cesare Mannelli, L.; Ghelardini, C.; Calvani, M.; Nicolai, R.; Mosconi, L.; Toscano, A.; Pacini, A.; Bartolini, A. Neuroprotective effects of acetyl-L-carnitine on neuropathic pain and apoptosis: A role for the nicotinic receptor. J. Neurosci. Res. 2009, 87, 200–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Sima, A.A.F.; Calvani, M.; Mehra, M.; Amato, A. Acetyl-L-carnitine improves pain, nerve regeneration, and vibratory perception in patients with chronic diabetic neuropathy: An analysis of two randomized placebo-controlled trials. Diabetes Care 2005, 28, 89–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Chirchiglia, D.; Paventi, S.; Seminara, P.; Cione, E.; Gallelli, L. N-Palmitoyl Ethanol Amide Pharmacological Treatment in Patients with Nonsurgical Lumbar Radiculopathy. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2018, 58, 733–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Chirchiglia, D.; Chirchiglia, P.; Marotta, R.; Gallelli, L. Add-on administration of ultramicronized palmitoylethanolamide in the treatment of new-onset burning mouth syndrome. Int. Med. Case Rep. J. 2019, 12, 39–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Rankin, L.; Fowler, C.J. The Basal pharmacology of palmitoylethanolamide. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 7942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Lang-Illievich, K.; Klivinyi, C.; Rumpold-Seitlinger, G.; Dorn, C.; Bornemann-Cimenti, H. The Effect of Palmitoylethanolamide on Pain Intensity, Central and Peripheral Sensitization, and Pain Modulation in Healthy Volunteers—A Randomized, Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Crossover Trial. Nutrients 2022, 14, 4084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. D’Amico, R.; Impellizzeri, D.; Cuzzocrea, S.; Di Paola, R. Aliamides update: Palmitoylethanolamide and its formulations on management of peripheral neuropathic pain. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 5330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Andresen, S.R.; Bing, J.; Hansen, R.M.; Biering-Sørensen, F.; Johannesen, I.L.; Hagen, E.M.; Rice, A.S.C.; Nielsen, J.F.; Bach, F.W.; Finnerup, N.B. Ultramicronized palmitoylethanolamide in spinal cord injury neuropathic pain: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Pain 2016, 157, 2097–2103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Cobellis, L.; Castaldi, M.A.; Giordano, V.; Trabucco, E.; De Franciscis, P.; Torella, M.; Colacurci, N. Effectiveness of the association micronized N-Palmitoylethanolamine (PEA)-transpolydatin in the treatment of chronic pelvic pain related to endometriosis after laparoscopic assessment: A pilot study. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2011, 158, 82–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kamper, D. Palmitoylethanolamide (PEA) in the treatment of neuropathic pain: A case study. Nutr. Health 2022, 28, 265–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Viana, M.D.M.; Lauria, P.S.S.; de Lima, A.A.; Opretzka, L.C.F.; Marcelino, H.R.; Villarreal, C.F. Alpha-Lipoic Acid as an Antioxidant Strategy for Managing Neuropathic Pain. Antioxidants 2022, 11, 2420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Gilron, I.; Robb, S.; Tu, D.; Holden, R.R.; Jackson, A.C.; Duggan, S.; Milev, R. Randomized, double-blind, controlled trial of a combination of alpha-lipoic acid and pregabalin for neuropathic pain: The PAIN-CARE trial. Pain 2023. Online ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ziegler, D.; Schatz, H.; Conrad, F.; Gries, F.A.; Ulrich, H.; Reichel, G.; Group, D.S. Effects of Treatment with the Antioxidant. Emerg. Treat. Technol. 1997, 20, 369–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Tankova, T.; Koev, D.; Dakovska, L. Alpha-lipoic acid in the treatment of autonomic diabetic neuropathy (controlled, randomized, open-label study). Rom. J. Intern. Med. 2004, 42, 457–464. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  33. Liu, F.; Zhang, Y.; Yang, M.; Liu, B.; Shen, Y.; Jia, W.-P.; Xiang, K.-S. Curative effect of alpha-lipoic acid on peripheral neuropathy in type 2 diabetes: A clinical study. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi 2007, 87, 2706–2709. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  34. Cassanego, G.; Rodrigues, P.; Bauermann, L.D.F.; Trevisan, G. Evaluation of the analgesic effect of ɑ-lipoic acid in treating pain disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Pharmacol. Res. 2022, 177, 106075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Rochette, L.; Ghibu, S.; Richard, C.; Zeller, M.; Cottin, Y.; Vergely, C. Direct and indirect antioxidant properties of α-lipoic acid and therapeutic potential. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 2013, 57, 114–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Pullano, S.A.; Marcianò, G.; Bianco, M.G.; Oliva, G.; Rania, V.; Vocca, C.; Cione, E.; De Sarro, G.; Gallelli, L.; Romeo, P.; et al. FT-IR Analysis of Structural Changes in Ketoprofen Lysine Salt and KiOil Caused by a Pulsed Magnetic Field. Bioengineering 2022, 9, 503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Premi, E.; Benussi, A.; La Gatta, A.; Visconti, S.; Costa, A.; Gilberti, N.; Cantoni, V.; Padovani, A.; Borroni, B.; Magoni, M. Modulation of long-term potentiation-like cortical plasticity in the healthy brain with low frequency-pulsed electromagnetic fields. BMC Neurosci. 2018, 19, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ahmed, Z.; Wieraszko, A. Pulsed magnetic stimulation modifies amplitude of action potentials in vitro via ionic channels-dependent mechanism. Bioelectromagnetics 2015, 36, 386–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Roberti, R.; Marcianò, G.; Casarella, A.; Rania, V.; Palleria, C.; Muraca, L.; Citraro, R.; De Sarro, G.; Serra, R.; Romeo, P.; et al. High-Intensity, Low-Frequency Pulsed Electromagnetic Field as an Odd Treatment in a Patient with Mixed Foot Ulcer: A Case Report. Reports 2022, 5, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Roberti, R.; Marcianò, G.; Casarella, A.; Rania, V.; Palleria, C.; Vocca, C.; Catarisano, L.; Muraca, L.; Citraro, R.; Romeo, P.; et al. Diamagnetic Therapy in a Patient with Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Type I and Multiple Drug Intolerance: A Case Report. Reports 2022, 5, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Gallelli, L.; Nardi, M.; Prantera, T.; Barbera, S.; Raffaele, M.; Arminio, D.; Pirritano, D.; Colosimo, M.; Maselli, R.; Pelaia, G.; et al. Retrospective analysis of adverse drug reactions induced by gemcitabine treatment in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Pharmacol. Res. 2004, 49, 259–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Gallelli, L.; Colosimo, M.; Pirritano, D.; Ferraro, M.; De Fazio, S.; Marigliano, N.M.; De Sarro, G. Retrospective evaluation of adverse drug reactions induced by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Clin. Drug Investig. 2007, 27, 115–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Naranjo, C.A.; Busto, U.; Sellers, E.M.; Sandor, P.; Ruiz, I.; Roberts, E.A.; Janecek, E.; Domecq, C.; Greenblatt, D.J. A method for estimating the probability of adverse drug reactions. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 1981, 30, 239–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Mascolo, A.; Scavone, C.; Sessa, M.; di Mauro, G.; Cimmaruta, D.; Orlando, V.; Rossi, F.; Sportiello, L.; Capuano, A. Can causality assessment fulfill the new European definition of adverse drug reaction? A review of methods used in spontaneous reporting. Pharmacol. Res. 2017, 123, 122–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Alberti, K.G.M.M.; Zimmet, P.; Shaw, J. The metabolic syndrome—A new worldwide definition. Lancet 2005, 366, 1059–1062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Puenpatom, R.A.; Victor, T.W. Increased Prevalence of Metabolic Syndrome in Individuals with Osteoarthritis. Postgrad. Med. 2009, 121, 9–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Louati, K.; Vidal, C.; Berenbaum, F.; Sellam, J. Association between diabetes mellitus and osteoarthritis: Systematic literature review and meta-analysis. RMD Open 2015, 1, e000077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Shashar, R.; Chatumi, S.; Amiel, G. Gender-Specific Medicine in Urology. Harefuah 2021, 160, 603–607. [Google Scholar]
  49. Laroche, M.L.; Charmes, J.P.; Nouaille, Y.; Picard, N.; Merle, L. Is inappropriate medication use a major cause of adverse drug reactions in the elderly? Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2007, 63, 177–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Hanlon, J.T.; Fillenbaum, G.G.; Kuchibhatla, M.; Artz, M.B.; Boult, C.; Gross, C.R.; Garrard, J.; Schmader, K.E. Impact of inappropriate drug use on mortality and functional status in representative community dwelling elders. Med. Care 2002, 40, 166–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Frankenthal, D.; Lerman, Y.; Lerman, Y. The impact of hospitalization on potentially inappropriate prescribing in an acute medical geriatric division. Int. J. Clin. Pharm. 2015, 37, 60–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Lechevallier-Michel, N.; Gautier-Bertrand, M.; Alpérovitch, A.; Berr, C.; Belmin, J.; Legrain, S.; Saint-Jean, O.; Tavernier, B.; Dartigues, J.F.; Fourrier-Réglat, A. Frequency and risk factors of potentially inappropriate medication use in a community-dwelling elderly population: Results from the 3C Study. Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2005, 60, 813–819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Al-Hashar, A.; Al-Zakwani, I.; Eriksson, T.; Sarakbi, A.; Al-Zadjali, B.; Al Mubaihsi, S.; Al Za’abi, M. Impact of medication reconciliation and review and counselling, on adverse drug events and healthcare resource use. Int. J. Clin. Pharm. 2018, 40, 1154–1164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Onder, G.; Landi, F.; Liperoti, R.; Fialova, D.; Gambassi, G.; Bernabei, R. Impact of inappropriate drug use among hospitalized older adults. Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2005, 61, 453–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Gonçalves, J.R.; Sleath, B.L.; Cerdeira, M.; Cavaco, A.M. Older people, medication usage and long-term care pharmacists: A retrospective cohort study. Eur. J. Hosp. Pharm. 2023. Online ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Cole, J.A.; Gonçalves-Bradley, D.C.; Alqahtani, M.; Barry, H.E.; Cadogan, C.; Rankin, A.; Patterson, S.M.; Kerse, N.; Cardwell, C.R.; Ryan, C.; et al. Interventions to improve the appropriate use of polypharmacy for older people. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2023, 11, CD008165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Kvarnström, K.; Westerholm, A.; Airaksinen, M.; Liira, H. Factors contributing to medication adherence in patients with a chronic condition: A scoping review of qualitative research. Pharmaceutics 2021, 13, 1100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Gast, A.; Mathes, T. Medication adherence influencing factors—An (updated) overview of systematic reviews. Syst. Rev. 2019, 8, 112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Sampaio, R.; Azevedo, L.F.; Dias, C.C.; Lopes, J.M.C. Non-adherence to pharmacotherapy: A prospective multicentre study about its incidence and its causes perceived by chronic pain patients. Patient Prefer. Adherence 2020, 14, 321–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Rosser, B.A.; McCracken, L.M.; Velleman, S.C.; Boichat, C.; Eccleston, C. Concerns about medication and medication adherence in patients with chronic pain recruited from general practice. Pain 2011, 152, 1201–1205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Gadkari, A.S.; McHorney, C.A. Unintentional non-adherence to chronic prescription medications: How unintentional is it really? BMC Health Serv. Res. 2012, 12, 98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Fick, M.; Waller, J.L.; Maclean, J.R.; Heuvel, R.; Vanden; Gary, J. Potentially Inappropriate Medication Use in a Medicare Costs and Utilization. J. Manag. Care Pharm. 2001, 7, 407–413. [Google Scholar]
  63. Niwata, S.; Yamada, Y.; Ikegami, N. Prevalence of inappropriate medication using Beers criteria in Japanese long-term care facilities. BMC Geriatr. 2006, 6, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Zah, V.; Brookfield, R.B.; Imro, M.; Tatovic, S.; Pelivanovic, J.; Vukicevic, D. Healthcare costs and resource utilization in chronic pain patients treated with extended-release formulations of tapentadol, oxycodone, or morphine stratified by type of pain: A retrospective claims analysis, 2012–2016. J. Pain Res. 2019, 12, 3037–3048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Guliani, H.; Hadjistavropoulos, T.; Jin, S.; Lix, L.M. Pain-related health care costs for long-term care residents. BMC Geriatr. 2021, 21, 552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Nury, E.; Schmucker, C.; Nagavci, B.; Motschall, E.; Nitschke, K.; Schulte, E.; Wegwarth, O.; Meerpohl, J.J. Efficacy and safety of strong opioids for chronic noncancer pain and chronic low back pain a systematic review and meta-analyses. Pain 2022, 163, 610–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. AIFA Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco Riassunto delle Caratteristiche del Prodotto-Ossicodone. Available online: https://farmaci.agenziafarmaco.gov.it/aifa/servlet/PdfDownloadServlet?pdfFileName=footer_000549_043927_RCP.pdf&sys=m0b1l3 (accessed on 16 August 2022).
  68. AIFA Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco Fentanyl-Riassunto delle Caratteristiche del Prodotto. Available online: https://farmaci.agenziafarmaco.gov.it/aifa/servlet/PdfDownloadServlet?pdfFileName=footer_002838_035693_RCP.pdf&sys=m0b1l3 (accessed on 16 August 2022).
  69. AIFA Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco Buprenorfina-Riassunto delle Caratteristiche del Prodotto. Available online: https://farmaci.agenziafarmaco.gov.it/aifa/servlet/PdfDownloadServlet?pdfFileName=footer_002322_039747_RCP.pdf&retry=0&sys=m0b1l3 (accessed on 16 August 2022).
  70. AIFA Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco Riassunto delle Caratteristiche del Prodotto-Contramal. Available online: https://farmaci.agenziafarmaco.gov.it/aifa/servlet/PdfDownloadServlet?pdfFileName=footer_000045_028853_RCP.pdf&sys=m0b1l3 (accessed on 16 August 2022).
  71. AIFA Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco Riassunto delle Caratteristiche del Prodotto-Duloxetina. Available online: https://farmaci.agenziafarmaco.gov.it/aifa/servlet/PdfDownloadServlet?pdfFileName=footer_000813_043843_RCP.pdf&sys=m0b1l3 (accessed on 25 July 2022).
  72. AIFA Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco Riassunto delle Caratteristiche del Prodotto-Pregabalin. Available online: https://farmaci.agenziafarmaco.gov.it/aifa/servlet/PdfDownloadServlet?pdfFileName=footer_003891_043719_RCP.pdf&sys=m0b1l3 (accessed on 24 July 2022).
  73. Gallucci, M.; Limbucci, N.; Zugaro, L.; Barile, A.; Stavroulis, E.; Ricci, A.; Galzio, R.; Masciocchi, C. Sciatica: Treatment with intradiscal and intraforaminal injections of steroid and oxygen-ozone versus steroid only. Radiology 2007, 242, 907–913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Viebahn-Haensler, R.; Fernández, O.S.L. Ozone in medicine. The low-dose ozone concept and its basic biochemical mechanisms of action in chronic inflammatory diseases. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 7890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Paoloni, M.; Di Sante, L.; Cacchio, A.; Apuzzo, D.; Marotta, S.; Razzano, M.; Franzini, M.; Santilli, V. Intramuscular oxygen-ozone therapy in the treatment of acute back pain with lumbar disc herniation: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, clinical trial of active and simulated lumbar paravertebral injection. Spine 2009, 34, 1337–1344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Muto, M.; Ambrosanio, G.; Guarnieri, G.; Capobianco, E.; Piccolo, G.; Annunziata, G.; Rotondo, A. “Low back pain” e sciatalgia: Trattamento con iniezione intradiscale-intraforaminale di O2-O3. La nostra esperienza. Radiol. Medica 2008, 113, 695–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Biazzo, A.; Corriero, A.S.; Confalonieri, N. Intramuscular oxygen-ozone therapy in the treatment of low back pain. Acta Biomed. 2018, 89, 41–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Andreula, C.F.; Simonetti, L.; De Santis, F.; Agati, R.; Ricci, R.; Leonardi, M. Minimally invasive oxygen-ozone therapy for lumbar disk herniation. Am. J. Neuroradiol. 2003, 24, 996–1000. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  79. Magalhaes, F.N.D.O.; Dotta, L.; Sasse, A.; Teixera, M.J.; Fonoff, E.T. Ozone therapy as a treatment for low back pain secondary to herniated disc: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Pain Physician 2012, 15, E115–E129. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  80. AIFA Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco Riassunto delle Caratteristiche del Prodotto-Nicetile. Available online: https://farmaci.agenziafarmaco.gov.it/aifa/servlet/PdfDownloadServlet?pdfFileName=footer_004375_025369_RCP.pdf&sys=m0b1l3 (accessed on 19 August 2022).
Reports 06 00057 g001
Figure 1. Flow chart showing enrolled patients.
Figure 1. Flow chart showing enrolled patients.
Reports 06 00057 g001
Table 1. Demographic characteristics at the time of enrollment. The data are expressed as a total number (N) and as a percentage (%) of enrolled patients (men: 328; women: 584).
Table 1. Demographic characteristics at the time of enrollment. The data are expressed as a total number (N) and as a percentage (%) of enrolled patients (men: 328; women: 584).
Men N: 328%Women N: 584%Delta Percentage
Age
18–6419559.433357.0−4.2
≥6513340.625143.06.2
Degree
Yes6218.812821.915.9
No26681.245678.1−3.7
Body mass index
<258225.018431.6 26
25–3016951.620034.2 −33.6
≥307723.420034.245.5
Smokers
Yes (or former smokers)19057.819433.3−42.7
No13842.239066.758.7
Diagnosis
Low back pain15948.427647.4−2.5
Low back pain + cervicobrachial pain14945.327246.52.6
Cervicobrachial pain216.3366.1−3.1
Table 2. Characteristics of enrolled patients (men: 328; women: 584) stratified for age. Data referring to age, BMI, DN4, and NRS are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation. Other data are expressed as the total number (N) and percentage (%) of enrolled patients. BMI: body mass index; DN4: Douleur Neuropathique en 4 Questions. NRS: numerical rating scale. ** p < 0.01.
Table 2. Characteristics of enrolled patients (men: 328; women: 584) stratified for age. Data referring to age, BMI, DN4, and NRS are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation. Other data are expressed as the total number (N) and percentage (%) of enrolled patients. BMI: body mass index; DN4: Douleur Neuropathique en 4 Questions. NRS: numerical rating scale. ** p < 0.01.
18–64>6518–64>65
MenWomen
N%N%N%N%
Enrolled19559.413340.633357.025143.0
Age52.1 ± 9.8 73 ± 6 53.3 ± 9.2 73.1 ± 7
BMI27.4 ± 3.9 26.9 ± 4.7 27.5 ± 5.5 28.5 ± 5.2
DN45.7 ± 1.1 5.8 ± 1.4 5.8 ± 1.2 5.9 ± 1.2
NRS8.2 ± 1.7 7.9 ± 1.3 8.3 ± 1.3 8.7 ± 1.4
Degree3115.87657.113523.111920.4
Smokers10352.8133100.021664.815160.2
Comorbidity18092.3133100.032396.9251100.0
Cardiovascular diseases8242.18765.416449.221384.8
Diabetes10855.49772.918455.418473.3
Osteoarthritis8242.18765.422066.120882.8
Urologic diseases4121.18261.5 **216.32610.3
Gastrointestinal diseases4121.14634.612838.410341
Neurological diseases2613.33123.110832.46124.3
Rheumatological diseases157.78613340.0 **5622.3 **
Psychiatric diseases2613.300.07221.64116.3 **
Renal diseases2110.82115.7103.13614.3
Respiratory diseases105.12115.73610.84116.3
Hematological diseases52.62115.7319.3218.3
drug users195100.0133100.0333100.0251100.0
Table 3. Drug used in enrolled patients (men: 328; women: 584) stratified for age. Data are expressed as the total number (N) and percentage (%) of enrolled patients.
Table 3. Drug used in enrolled patients (men: 328; women: 584) stratified for age. Data are expressed as the total number (N) and percentage (%) of enrolled patients.
18–64>6518–64>65
MenWomen
N%N%N%N%
Opioids
Oxycodone/naloxone309.1113.4152.6264.5
Buprenorphine123.730.9356.0264.5
Codeine3811.6134.08314.2406.8
Tramadol4112.5267.9569.6264.5
Tapentadol41.241.26191.5
Fentanyl82.420.6132.220.3
Oxycodone103.0154.6111.991.5
Antidepressants
Amitriptyline123.7134.0305.1162.7
Duloxetine3611154.6539.1406.8
Antiepileptics
Pregabalin9127.76218.911820.28214
Other treatments
Eperisone3510.7278.2528.9518.7
Cannabidiol and β-caryophyllene237.0185.5396.7335.7
Cyclobenzaprine144.3113.4356111.9
Tizanidine82.420.6152.650.9
L-acetyl-carnitine6319.2309.1589.95910.1
Nutraceuticals9729.67723.517930.715426.4
Diamagnetic therapy10231.14112.513322.88214
Oxygen–ozone therapy15146.08525.922037.715326.2
Table 4. Demographic characteristics of enrolled patients who developed adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to drugs used in the management of neuropathic pain (men 67; women 97) The percentage of enrolled patients with ADRs was calculated with respect to the total number of enrolled patients (men: 328; women: 584). Data referring to age, BMI, DN4, and NRS are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation. Other data are expressed as the total number (N) and percentage (%) of enrolled patients. BMI: body mass index; NRS: numerical rating scale; DN4: Douleur Neuropathique en 4 Questions. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
Table 4. Demographic characteristics of enrolled patients who developed adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to drugs used in the management of neuropathic pain (men 67; women 97) The percentage of enrolled patients with ADRs was calculated with respect to the total number of enrolled patients (men: 328; women: 584). Data referring to age, BMI, DN4, and NRS are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation. Other data are expressed as the total number (N) and percentage (%) of enrolled patients. BMI: body mass index; NRS: numerical rating scale; DN4: Douleur Neuropathique en 4 Questions. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
MenWomen
N%N%Delta Percentage
Enrolled6720.49716.6−18.7
Age61 ± 13.2 60.3 ± 14
BMI27.3 ± 2.8 28.4 ± 5.4
DN45.8 ± 1 6 ± 1.9
NRS9.3 ± 1.3 9.3 ± 1.1
Degree1014.92626.879.6
Smokers4161.24647.4−22.5
Comorbidity6292.597100.08.1
Cardiovascular diseases4668.75152.6−23.4
Diabetes4161.25657.7−5.7
Osteoarthritis3146.37173.258.2
Urologic diseases2131.3 *1010.3−67.1
Gastrointestinal diseases2131.33637.118.4
Neurological diseases1014.93132.0 **114.1
Rheumatological diseases1522.44142.3 **88.8
Psychiatric diseases57.51010.338.1
Renal diseases1522.41010.3−54.0
Respiratory diseases57.51515.5 **107.2
Hematological diseases1014.91515.53.6
drug users67100.097100.00.0
Table 5. Student’s t-test evaluation in patients (men vs. women) with and without adverse drug reactions (ADRs). BMI: body mass index; DN4: Douleur Neuropathique en 4 Questions; NRS: numerical rating scale.
Table 5. Student’s t-test evaluation in patients (men vs. women) with and without adverse drug reactions (ADRs). BMI: body mass index; DN4: Douleur Neuropathique en 4 Questions; NRS: numerical rating scale.
Patients without ADRsPatients with ADRs
men vs. womenmen vs. women
Age0.2335220.422397
BMI0.2080000.224596
DN40.4309260.327175
NRS0.0619570.408738
Table 6. Gender differences in enrolled patients (men: 328 and women: 584) with or without adverse drug reactions (ADRs) during the treatment of neuropathic pain. Data referring to degree and smokers are expressed as the total number (N) and percentage (%) of enrolled patients; data referring to age, BMI, DN4, and NRS are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation of enrolled patients. BMI: body mass index; DN4: Douleur Neuropathique en 4 Questions. NRS: numerical rating scale. ** p < 0.01.
Table 6. Gender differences in enrolled patients (men: 328 and women: 584) with or without adverse drug reactions (ADRs) during the treatment of neuropathic pain. Data referring to degree and smokers are expressed as the total number (N) and percentage (%) of enrolled patients; data referring to age, BMI, DN4, and NRS are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation of enrolled patients. BMI: body mass index; DN4: Douleur Neuropathique en 4 Questions. NRS: numerical rating scale. ** p < 0.01.
Men
without ADRswith ADRs
N%N%Delta Percentage
Enrolled26179.66720.474.3
Age60.5 ± 13.5 61 ± 13.2
BMI27.2 ± 4.6 27.3 ± 2.8
DN45.8 ± 1.2 5.8 ± 1
NRS7.9 ± 1.5 9.3 ± 1.3
Degree1351014.9 **199.6
Smokers381.54161.2 **4024.1
Women
without ADRswith ADRs
N%N%Delta Percentage
Enrolled48783.49716.680.1
Age62.1 ± 12.6 60.3 ± 14
BMI27.9 ± 5.4 28.4 ± 5.4
DN45.8 ± 1.1 6 ± 1.9
NRS8.3 ± 1.3 9.3 ± 1.1
Degree10321.12626.826.7
Smokers14930.64647.4 **55.0
Table 7. Enrolled patients (men: 328 and women: 584) with a comorbidity developing or not experiencing adverse drug reactions (ADRs) during the treatment of neuropathic pain. Data are expressed as the total number (N) or percentage (%) of enrolled patients. ** p < 0.01.
Table 7. Enrolled patients (men: 328 and women: 584) with a comorbidity developing or not experiencing adverse drug reactions (ADRs) during the treatment of neuropathic pain. Data are expressed as the total number (N) or percentage (%) of enrolled patients. ** p < 0.01.
Men
without ADRs (N)%with ADRs (N)%Delta percentage
Total26179.66720.4−74.3
Cardiovascular diseases11945.65074.663.7
Diabetes16061.34567.29.6
Osteoarthritis13551.73450.7−1.9
Urologic diseases10138.72232.8−15.1
Gastrointestinal diseases6524.92232.831.8
Neurological diseases4617.61116.4−6.8
Rheumatological diseases62.31725.4 **1003.7
Psychiatric diseases207.769.016.9
Renal diseases259.61725.4 **164.9
Respiratory diseases259.669.0−6.5
Hematological diseases155.71116.4185.7
Women
without ADRs (N)%with ADRs (N)%Delta percentage
Total48783.49716.6−80.1
Cardiovascular diseases28057.55152.6−8.6
Diabetes31765.15657.7−11.3
Osteoarthritis37276.47173.2−4.2
Urologic diseases−24−4.91010.3 **−309.2
Gastrointestinal diseases22145.43637.1−18.2
Neurological diseases13327.33132.017.0
Rheumatological diseases15832.44142.330.3
Psychiatric diseases7214.81010.3−30.3
Renal diseases367.41010.339.5
Respiratory diseases6713.81515.512.4
Hematological diseases377.61515.5103.5
Table 8. Dosage used in enrolled patients with neuropathic pain that either developed or presented no drug reactions (ADRs). Data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation.
Table 8. Dosage used in enrolled patients with neuropathic pain that either developed or presented no drug reactions (ADRs). Data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation.
Dosage
DrugWithout ADRsWith ADRp Value
Oxycodone10 ± 7.145 ± 41.50.56357
Tramadol78.8 ± 37.884.7 ± 54.40.86652
Buprenorphine20.5 ± 26.026.9 ± 21.20.19847
Codeine41.8 ± 17.030.0 ± 00.17533
Fentanyl62.5 ± 17.741.7 ± 14.40.09469
Pregabalin122.1 ± 65.3138,49 ± 1180.97648
Duloxetine38.6 ± 13.938.6 ± 14.61
Amitriptyline14 ± 12.824.5 ± 24.00.68413
Table 9. Treatments prescribed to enrolled patients (men: 328 and women: 584) with or without adverse drug reactions (ADRs) during the treatment of neuropathic pain. Data are expressed as the total number (N) and percentage (%) of enrolled patients.
Table 9. Treatments prescribed to enrolled patients (men: 328 and women: 584) with or without adverse drug reactions (ADRs) during the treatment of neuropathic pain. Data are expressed as the total number (N) and percentage (%) of enrolled patients.
Men
without ADRs (n: 261)with ADRs (n: 67)
N%N%Delta Percentage
Opioids146
Oxycodone/naloxone2610.01522.4124.7
Buprenorphine103.857.594.8
Codeine4617.657.5−57.7
Tramadol4617.62131.377.8
Tapentadol31.157.5549.3
Fentanyl51.957.5289.6
Oxycodone103.81522.4484.3
Antidepressants
Amitriptyline155.71014.9159.7
Duloxetine4115.71014.9−5.0
Antiepileptics
Pregabalin10741.04668.767.5
Other treatments
Eperisone2610.03653.7439.4
Cannabidiol and β-caryophyllene3613.857.5−45.9
Cyclobenzaprine207.757.5−2.6
Tizanidine51.957.5289.6
L-acetyl-carnitine6725.72638.851.2
Nutraceuticals14354.83146.3−15.6
Diamagnetic therapy9737.24668.784.7
Oxygen–ozone therapy17968.65785.124.0
Women
without ADRs (n: 487)with ADRs (n: 97)
N%N%Delta Percentage
Opioids
Oxycodone/naloxone316.41010.362.0
Buprenorphine469.41515.563.7
Codeine9719.92626.834.6
Tramadol5611.52626.8133.1
Tapentadol102.155.2151.0
Fentanyl51.01010.3904.1
Oxycodone102.11010.3402.1
Antidepressants
Amitriptyline367.41010.339.5
Duloxetine6713.82626.894.8
Antiepileptics 0.0
Pregabalin15431.64647.450.0
Other treatments
Eperisone6713.83637.1169.8
Cannabidiol and β-caryophyllene367.43637.1402.1
Cyclobenzaprine265.32020.6286.2
Tizanidine102.11010.3402.1
L-acetyl-carnitine9719.92020.63.5
Nutraceuticals27255.96162.912.6
Diamagnetic therapy15431.66162.998.9
Oxygen–ozone therapy30262.07173.2−15.7
Table 10. Pearson’s test correlation in patients with and without ADRs.
Table 10. Pearson’s test correlation in patients with and without ADRs.
Patients without ADRs
BMI–NRSBMI–DN4NRS–DN4Age–NRSAge–DN4Age–BMI
men0.17740.07910.2597−0.0845−0.0737−0.0049
women0.11830.08840.04190.23750.02970.1603
Patients with ADRs
BMI–NRSBMI–DN4NRS–DN4Age–NRSAge–DN4Age–BMI
Men0.20630.05390.1275−0.38200.09170.1463
Women0.32210.05760.20010.17160.11180.3215
Table 11. Types of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) recorded in treated patients (men 67, women 97) for the management of neuropathic pain. * The same patient with more ADRs during polytherapy. The women’s group *a, *b, *c, *d, *e, *f, representing six patients (a–f) that developed more than one ADR. Data are expressed as the total number (N) and the percentage (%) of enrolled patients.
Table 11. Types of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) recorded in treated patients (men 67, women 97) for the management of neuropathic pain. * The same patient with more ADRs during polytherapy. The women’s group *a, *b, *c, *d, *e, *f, representing six patients (a–f) that developed more than one ADR. Data are expressed as the total number (N) and the percentage (%) of enrolled patients.
Men (n: 67)Women (n: 97)
N%TypeN%Type
Oxycodone57.7Stypsis (5)55.3somnolence (4); somnolence (1) *a
oxycodone/naloxone1015.4stypsis (1) *; confusion (9)55.3stypsis (5) *f
Buprenorphine57.7blood hypertension (5)1010.5stypsis (5); skin rash (4); skin rash (1) *a
Codeine57.7Stypsis (5)55.3stypsis (4); stypsis (1) *b
Tramadol00.0 1010.5blood hypertension (9), (1) *c
Tapentadol00.0 00.0
Fentanyl57.7Stypsis (5)00.0
amitriptyline1015.4confusion (6); somnolence (4)55.3Confusion (5)
Duloxetine57.7Confusion (5)1515.8confusion (8); somnolence (7)
Pregabalin1015.4confusion (1) *; somnolence (9)3131.6Somnolence (28),(1) *d, (1) *e, (1) *f
Cyclobenzaprine2130.8somnolence (20), (1) *2021.1somnolence (17), (1) *b; (1) *d; skin rash (1) *e
Nutrients00.0 1515.8blood hypertension (1) *c; bowel dysfunction (13), (1) *f
Oxygen–ozone therapy00.0 1010.5pain in the site of administration (10)
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Vocca, C.; Rania, V.; Siniscalchi, A.; Palleria, C.; Marcianò, G.; Galati, C.; Catarisano, L.; Mastrangelo, V.; Corasaniti, F.; Monea, F.; et al. The Safety of Drug Treatment in Patients with Neuropathic Pain: Data from Ambulatory Care in a Real-Life Setting. Reports 2023, 6, 57. https://doi.org/10.3390/reports6040057

AMA Style

Vocca C, Rania V, Siniscalchi A, Palleria C, Marcianò G, Galati C, Catarisano L, Mastrangelo V, Corasaniti F, Monea F, et al. The Safety of Drug Treatment in Patients with Neuropathic Pain: Data from Ambulatory Care in a Real-Life Setting. Reports. 2023; 6(4):57. https://doi.org/10.3390/reports6040057

Chicago/Turabian Style

Vocca, Cristina, Vincenzo Rania, Antonio Siniscalchi, Caterina Palleria, Gianmarco Marcianò, Cecilia Galati, Luca Catarisano, Valentina Mastrangelo, Franco Corasaniti, Francesco Monea, and et al. 2023. "The Safety of Drug Treatment in Patients with Neuropathic Pain: Data from Ambulatory Care in a Real-Life Setting" Reports 6, no. 4: 57. https://doi.org/10.3390/reports6040057

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop