Disambiguating pharmacological mechanisms from placebo in neuropathic pain using functional neuroimaging.

BACKGROUND: A lack of objective outcome measures and overreliance on subjective pain reports in early proof-of-concept studies contribute to the high attrition of potentially effective new analgesics. We studied the utility of neuroimaging in providing objective evidence of neural activity related to drug modulation or a placebo effect in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, three-way crossover trial. METHODS: We chronically administered pregabalin or tramadol (first-line and second-line analgesics, respectively), recommended for neuropathic pain, in 16 post-traumatic neuropathic pain patients. We measured subjective pain reports, allodynia-evoked neural activity, and brain resting state functional connectivity from patients during the three sessions and resting state data at baseline from patients after washout of their current medication. All data were collected using a 3 T MRI scanner. RESULTS: When compared with placebo only, pregabalin significantly suppressed allodynia-evoked neural activity in several nociceptive and pain-processing areas of the brain, despite the absence of behavioural analgesia. Furthermore, placebo significantly increased functional connectivity between the rostral anterior cingulate and the brainstem, a core component of the placebo neural network. CONCLUSIONS: Functional neuroimaging provided objective evidence of pharmacodynamic efficacy in a proof-of-concept study setting where subjective pain outcome measures are often unreliable. Additionally, we provide evidence confirming the neural mechanism underpinning placebo analgesia as identified in acute experimental imaging studies in patients during the placebo arm of a clinical trial. We explore how brain penetrant active drugs potentially interact with this mechanism. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT0061015.

Non-invasive imaging compared with intra-arterial angiography in the diagnosis of symptomatic carotid stenosis: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Accurate carotid imaging is important for effective secondary stroke prevention. Non-invasive imaging, now widely available, is replacing intra-arterial angiography for carotid stenosis, but the accuracy remains uncertain despite an extensive literature. We systematically reviewed the accuracy of non-invasive imaging compared with intra-arterial angiography for diagnosing carotid stenosis in patients with carotid territory ischaemic symptoms. METHODS: We searched for articles published between 1980 and April 2004; included studies comparing non-invasive imaging with intra-arterial angiography that met Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) criteria; extracted data to calculate sensitivity and specificity of non-invasive imaging, to test for heterogeneity and to perform sensitivity analyses; and categorised percent stenosis by the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (NASCET) method. RESULTS: In 41 included studies (2541 patients, 4876 arteries), contrast-enhanced MR angiography was more sensitive (0.94, 95% CI 0.88-0.97) and specific (0.93, 95% CI 0.89-0.96) for 70-99% stenosis than Doppler ultrasound, MR angiography, and CT angiography (sensitivities 0.89, 0.88, 0.76; specificities 0.84, 0.84, 0.94, respectively). Data for 50-69% stenoses and combinations of non-invasive tests were sparse and unreliable. There was heterogeneity between studies and evidence of publication bias. INTERPRETATION: Non-invasive tests, used cautiously, could replace intra-arterial carotid angiography for 70-99% stenosis. However, more data are required to determine their accuracy, especially at 50-69% stenoses where the balance of risk and benefit for carotid endarterectomy is particularly narrow, and to explore and overcome heterogeneity. Methodology for evaluating imaging tests should be improved; blinded, prospective studies in clinically relevant patients are essential basic characteristics.