Evaluación de los factores relacionados con la aparición de nuevas fracturas por fragilidad: un estudio de casos y controles / Evaluation of factors related to the occurrence of new fragility fractures: A case–control study

Introducción: Las fracturas por fragilidad (FF) son frecuentes en pacientes osteoporóticos. Existen una serie de factores de riesgo y variables clínicas, que podrían predecir su aparición. Material y método: Se realizó un estudio observacional retrospectivo de casos y controles. Los casos estuvieron definidos por la presencia de una FF (326 participantes) y los controles por pacientes de similares características sin FF (629 participantes). Resultados: Ciertos factores aumentan el riesgo de FF, como un diagnóstico previo de DM tipo 2 (OR: 2,001), las elevaciones de 1ng/mL del CTX (OR: 1,88), tener antecedentes parentales de fractura de cadera (OR: 1,667), el aumento en 5 años en la edad (OR: 1,39) y los incrementos de 1kg/m2 del IMC (OR: 1,041). Por el contrario, otros factores evaluados disminuyen ese riesgo, como mantener unos niveles de 25(OH)D≥30ng/mL (OR: 0,686) y una T-score≥−2,5 (OR: 0,642). Conclusiones: Niveles de 25(OH)D≥30ng/mL y una T-score en el cuello femoral≥−2,5 son factores protectores de las FF, mientras que el diagnóstico previo de DM tipo 2, un CTX elevado, el antecedente parental de fractura de cadera, un incremento de 1kg/m2 del IMC y el aumento de la edad en 5 años serían predisponentes a padecer FF.(AU)

Introduction: Fragility fractures (FF) are frequent in osteoporotic patients. There are a series of risk factors and clinical variables that could predict their appearance. Material and method: A retrospective observational study of cases and controls was carried out. Cases were defined by the presence of FF (326 participants) and controls by patients with similar characteristics without FF (629 participants). Results: Certain factors increase the risk of FF, such as a previous diagnosis of type 2 DM (OR: 2.001), 1ng/mL elevations of CTX (OR: 1.88), having a parental history of hip fracture (OR: 1.667), 5-year increase in age (OR: 1.39), and 1kg/m2 increases in BMI (OR: 1.041). In contrast, other factors evaluated decreased this risk, such as maintaining 25(OH)D levels≥30ng/mL (OR: 0.686) and a T-score≥−2.5 (OR: 0.642). Conclusions: Levels of 25(OH)D≥30ng/mL and a T-score at the femoral neck≥−2.5 are protective factors for FF, while a previous diagnosis of type 2 DM, an elevated CTX, a parental history of hip fracture, an increase of 1kg/m2 in BMI and an increase in age by 5 years would be predisposing to FF.(AU)

[Translated article] Evaluation of factors related to the occurrence of new fragility fractures: A case–control study / Evaluación de los factores relacionados con la aparición de nuevas fracturas por fragilidad: un estudio de casos y controles

Introduction: Fragility fractures (FF) are frequent in osteoporotic patients. There are a series of risk factors and clinical variables that could predict their appearance. Material and method: A retrospective observational study of cases and controls was carried out. Cases were defined by the presence of FF (326 participants) and controls by patients with similar characteristics without FF (629 participants). Results: Certain factors increase the risk of FF, such as a previous diagnosis of type 2 DM (OR: 2.001), 1ng/mL elevations of CTX (OR: 1.88), having a parental history of hip fracture (OR: 1.667), 5-year increase in age (OR: 1.39), and 1kg/m2 increases in BMI (OR: 1.041). In contrast, other factors evaluated decreased this risk, such as maintaining 25(OH)D levels≥30ng/mL (OR: 0.686) and a T-score≥−2.5 (OR: 0.642). Conclusions: Levels of 25(OH)D≥30ng/mL and a T-score at the femoral neck≥−2.5 are protective factors for FF, while a previous diagnosis of type 2 DM, an elevated CTX, a parental history of hip fracture, an increase of 1kg/m2 in BMI and an increase in age by 5 years would be predisposing to FF.(AU)

Introducción: Las fracturas por fragilidad (FF) son frecuentes en pacientes osteoporóticos. Existen una serie de factores de riesgo y variables clínicas, que podrían predecir su aparición. Material y método: Se realizó un estudio observacional retrospectivo de casos y controles. Los casos estuvieron definidos por la presencia de una FF (326 participantes) y los controles por pacientes de similares características sin FF (629 participantes). Resultados: Ciertos factores aumentan el riesgo de FF, como un diagnóstico previo de DM tipo 2 (OR: 2,001), las elevaciones de 1ng/mL del CTX (OR: 1,88), tener antecedentes parentales de fractura de cadera (OR: 1,667), el aumento en 5 años en la edad (OR: 1,39) y los incrementos de 1kg/m2 del IMC (OR: 1,041). Por el contrario, otros factores evaluados disminuyen ese riesgo, como mantener unos niveles de 25(OH)D≥30ng/mL (OR: 0,686) y una T-score≥−2,5 (OR: 0,642). Conclusiones: Niveles de 25(OH)D≥30ng/mL y una T-score en el cuello femoral≥−2,5 son factores protectores de las FF, mientras que el diagnóstico previo de DM tipo 2, un CTX elevado, el antecedente parental de fractura de cadera, un incremento de 1kg/m2 del IMC y el aumento de la edad en 5 años serían predisponentes a padecer FF.(AU)

[Translated article] Evaluation of factors related to the occurrence of new fragility fractures: A case-control study.

INTRODUCTION: Fragility fractures (FF) are frequent in osteoporotic patients. There are a series of risk factors and clinical variables that could predict their appearance. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A retrospective observational study of cases and controls was carried out. Cases were defined by the presence of FF (326 participants) and controls by patients with similar characteristics without FF (629 participants). RESULTS: Certain factors increase the risk of FF, such as a previous diagnosis of type 2 DM (OR: 2.001), 1ng/mL elevations of CTX (OR: 1.88), having a parental history of hip fracture (OR: 1.667), 5-year increase in age (OR: 1.39), and 1kg/m2 increases in BMI (OR: 1.041). In contrast, other factors evaluated decreased this risk, such as maintaining 25(OH)D levels≥30ng/mL (OR: 0.686) and a T-score≥-2.5 (OR: 0.642). CONCLUSIONS: Levels of 25(OH)D≥30ng/mL and a T-score at the femoral neck≥-2.5 are protective factors for FF, while a previous diagnosis of type 2 DM, an elevated CTX, a parental history of hip fracture, an increase of 1kg/m2 in BMI and an increase in age by 5 years would be predisposing to FF.

Evaluation of factors related to the occurrence of new fragility fractures: A case-control study. / Evaluación de los factores relacionados con la aparición de nuevas fracturas por fragilidad: un estudio de casos y controles.

INTRODUCTION: Fragility fractures (FF) are frequent in osteoporotic patients. There are a series of risk factors and clinical variables that could predict their appearance. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A retrospective observational study of cases and controls was carried out. Cases were defined by the presence of FF (326 participants) and controls by patients with similar characteristics without FF (629 participants). RESULTS: Certain factors increase the risk of FF, such as a previous diagnosis of type 2 DM (OR: 2.001), 1ng/mL elevations of CTX (OR: 1.88), having a parental history of hip fracture (OR: 1.667), 5-year increase in age (OR: 1.39), and 1kg/m2 increases in BMI (OR: 1.041). In contrast, other factors evaluated decreased this risk, such as maintaining 25(OH)D levels≥30ng/mL (OR: 0.686) and a T-score≥-2.5 (OR: 0.642). CONCLUSIONS: Levels of 25(OH)D≥30ng/mL and a T-score at the femoral neck≥-2.5 are protective factors for FF, while a previous diagnosis of type 2 DM, an elevated CTX, a parental history of hip fracture, an increase of 1kg/m2 in BMI and an increase in age by 5 years would be predisposing to FF.

Mecanismos etiopatogénicos de la artrosis / Ethiopathogenic mechanism of osteoarthritis

La artrosis es una enfermedad incurable que se caracteriza por un deterioro progresivo del cartílago articular asociado a una proliferación ósea subcondral y osteofitaria, que provoca dolor, limitación de la movilidad, discapacidad y deterioro de la calidad de vida del paciente. Existe una discrepancia clínica entre pacientes que radiológicamente están en un estadio similar.Se han descrito una serie de factores de riesgo que actuarían de forma sistémica o local en cada articulación. Estos factores, solos o de manera coincidente, darían lugar a las alteraciones estructurales de los tejidos articulares y desarrollarían la enfermedad. El mecanismo real por el cual estos factores de riesgo actúan no es del todo conocido. El conocimiento de su forma de actuar y el momento en que actúan sería una buena oportunidad para realizar un tratamiento específico y precoz que evite la aparición o la progresión de la artrosis.(AU)

Osteoarthritis is an incurable disease characterized by a progressive deterioration of the articular cartilage associated with a subchondral and osteophyte bone proliferation, which causes pain, limitation of mobility, disability, and deterioration of the patient's quality of life. There is a clinical discrepancy between patients who are radiologically in a similar stage.A series of risk factors have been described that would act systemically or locally in each joint. These factors alone or coincidentally would give rise to structural alterations of the joint tissues and would develop the disease. The actual mechanism by which these risk factors act is not entirely known. Knowing their way of acting and when they act would be a good opportunity to carry out a specific and early treatment that prevents the appearance or progression of osteoarthritis.(AU)

Dolor irruptivo en pacientes con dolor lumbar crónico / Breakthrough pain in patients with chronic low back pain

No disponible

Análisis coste-efectividad de celecoxib frente a antiinflamatorios no esteroideos no selectivos en el tratamiento de la artrosis en España: una perspectiva actual / Cost-effectiveness analysis of celecoxib versus non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug therapy for the treatment of osteoarthritis in Spain: a current perspective

OBJETIVO: Realizar un análisis coste-efectividad de celecoxib y antiinflamatorios no esteroideos no selectivos en el tratamiento de la artrosis según práctica habitual en España. MÉTODOS: El análisis coste-efectividad se realizó mediante un modelo analítico tipo árbol de decisión utilizando la distribución, dosis y duración de los tratamientos y la incidencia de eventos gastrointestinales (GI) y cardiovasculares observados en el estudio pragmático «GI-Reasons». La efectividad se expresó en eventos evitados y años de vida ajustados por calidad (AVAC) ganados. Los AVAC ganados se calcularon a partir del coeficiente de utilidad asociado a cada tipo de evento GI o cardiovascular observados en el estudio GI-Reasons. La perspectiva fue la del Sistema Nacional de Salud para el cálculo de los costes de tratamiento usando precios actuales (€, noviembre de 2014) de los fármacos y eventos GI y cardiovascular. El análisis coste-efectividad se expresó como coste incremental por AVAC ganado y por evento evitado. Se llevaron a cabo análisis de sensibilidad probabilísticos y univariantes. RESULTADOS: En comparación con antiinflamatorios no esteroideos no selectivos, celecoxib, a su precio actual, mostró mayores costes sanitarios por paciente: 157 € versus 201 €. Sin embargo, se asoció con un aumento de la ganancia de AVAC y una incidencia significativamente menor de eventos GI (p < 0,001), mostrando un coste incremental de 13.286 € por AVAC ganado y 4.471 € por evento evitado. Los análisis de sensibilidad confirmaron los resultados. CONCLUSIÓN: Celecoxib a su precio actual puede ser considerado una alternativa coste-efectiva frente a los antiinflamatorios no esteroideos no selectivos en el tratamiento de la artrosis en España

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of celecoxib and non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for the treatment of osteoarthritis in clinical practice in Spain. METHODS: A decision-tree model using distribution, doses, treatment duration and incidence of GI and CV events observed in the pragmatic PROBE-designed «GI-Reasons» trial was used for cost-effectiveness. Effectiveness was expressed in terms of event averted and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) gained. QALY were calculated based on utility decrement in case of any adverse events reported in GI-Reasons trial. The National Health System perspective in Spain was applied; cost calculations included current prices of drugs plus cost of adverse events occurred. The analysis was expressed as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per QALY gained and per event averted. One-way and probabilistic analyses were performed. RESULTS: Compared with non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, at current prices, celecoxib treatment had higher overall treatment costs € 201 and € 157, respectively. However, celecoxib was associated with a slight increase in QALY gain and significantly lower incidence of gastrointestinal events (p<.001), with mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of € 13,286 per QALY gained and € 4,471 per event averted. Sensitivity analyses were robust, and confirmed the results of the base case. CONCLUSION: Celecoxib at current price may be considered as a cost-effective alternative vs. non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the treatment of osteoarthritis in daily practice in the Spanish NHS

[Cost-effectiveness analysis of celecoxib versus non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug therapy for the treatment of osteoarthritis in Spain: A current perspective]. / Análisis coste-efectividad de celecoxib frente a antiinflamatorios no esteroideos no selectivos en el tratamiento de la artrosis en España: una perspectiva actual.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of celecoxib and non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for the treatment of osteoarthritis in clinical practice in Spain. METHODS: A decision-tree model using distribution, doses, treatment duration and incidence of GI and CV events observed in the pragmatic PROBE-designed «GI-Reasons¼ trial was used for cost-effectiveness. Effectiveness was expressed in terms of event averted and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) gained. QALY were calculated based on utility decrement in case of any adverse events reported in GI-Reasons trial. The National Health System perspective in Spain was applied; cost calculations included current prices of drugs plus cost of adverse events occurred. The analysis was expressed as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per QALY gained and per event averted. One-way and probabilistic analyses were performed. RESULTS: Compared with non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, at current prices, celecoxib treatment had higher overall treatment costs €201 and €157, respectively. However, celecoxib was associated with a slight increase in QALY gain and significantly lower incidence of gastrointestinal events (p<.001), with mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €13,286 per QALY gained and €4,471 per event averted. Sensitivity analyses were robust, and confirmed the results of the base case. CONCLUSION: Celecoxib at current price may be considered as a cost-effective alternative vs. non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the treatment of osteoarthritis in daily practice in the Spanish NHS.

Consenso SECOT-GEDOS sobre el control del dolor prequirúrgico en artrosis de rodilla y cadera / SECOT-GEDOS consensus on pre-surgical pain management in knee and hip arthrosis

Objetivo: Desarrollar recomendaciones basadas en la mejor evidencia y experiencia sobre el manejo del dolor en pacientes con artrosis de rodilla o cadera e indicación de artroplastia. Métodos: Las recomendaciones se emitieron siguiendo la metodología de grupos nominales. Se seleccionó un grupo director de expertos (5 traumatólogos y un anestesiólogo) que definieron el alcance, usuarios, apartados del documento, posibles recomendaciones, revisiones sistemáticas y se asignaron tareas. Se realizaron 3 revisiones sistemáticas sobre: la eficacia y seguridad de la analgesia prequirúrgica en relación al dolor posquirúrgico; la eficacia y seguridad de la analgesia preventiva, y sobre los factores prequirúrgicos que influyen en el dolor posquirúrgico. Los expertos redactaron los apartados y generaron las recomendaciones correspondientes. El nivel de evidencia y grado de recomendación se clasificaron según el modelo del Center for Evidence Based Medicine de Oxford y el grado de acuerdo por técnica Delphi (2 rondas). El Delphi se amplió a 39 traumatólogos y anestesiólogos. El documento completo circuló entre el grupo director para su última revisión. Resultados: Se generaron 21 recomendaciones. Incluye el manejo farmacológico específico, la evaluación y monitorización de estos pacientes que están en tratamiento, y el tratamiento preventivo del dolor posquirúrgico. Existió consenso mayor del 70% en 19 de ellas. Conclusiones: En el paciente pendiente de artroplastia de cadera o rodilla se debe hacer una correcta evaluación, seguimiento y manejo farmacológico y no farmacológico de los factores que predicen un mal resultado de la intervención, en particular del dolor prequirúrgico. Estas actuaciones pueden mejorar el dolor posquirúrgico y el resultado de la artroplastia (AU)

Objective: To develop recommendations, based on best evidence and experience, on pain management in patients undertaking total knee or hip replacement. Methods: Nominal group methodology was followed. A group of experts was selected (5 orthopedics, 1 anesthesiologist), who defined the scope, users, topics, preliminary recommendations, and 3 systematic reviews: efficacy and safety of pre-surgical analgesia regarding to post-surgical pain, efficacy and safety of pre-emptive analgesia and pre-operative factors of post-operative pain. The level of evidence and grade of recommendation was established using the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine, and the level of agreement with the Delphi technique (2 rounds). The Delphi was extended to 39 orthopedics and anesthesiologists. The whole document was reviewed by all the experts. Results: A total of 21 recommendations were produced. They include specific pharmacological treatment, as well as the evaluation and monitoring of patients on this treatment, and post-operative pre-emptive treatment. Agreement above 70% was reached in 19 recommendations. Conclusions: In patients undergoing total knee or hip replacement, a proper evaluation, follow-up, pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment of predictors of poor surgical outcomes should be performed, especially those related to pre-operative pain. This can improve post-operative pain and surgery outcomes (AU)

SECOT-GEDOS consensus on pre-surgical pain management in knee and hip arthrosis.

OBJECTIVE: To develop recommendations, based on best evidence and experience, on pain management in patients undertaking total knee or hip replacement. METHODS: Nominal group methodology was followed. A group of experts was selected (5 orthopedics, 1 anesthesiologist), who defined the scope, users, topics, preliminary recommendations, and 3 systematic reviews: efficacy and safety of pre-surgical analgesia regarding to post-surgical pain, efficacy and safety of pre-emptive analgesia and pre-operative factors of post-operative pain. The level of evidence and grade of recommendation was established using the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine, and the level of agreement with the Delphi technique (2 rounds). The Delphi was extended to 39 orthopedics and anesthesiologists. The whole document was reviewed by all the experts. RESULTS: A total of 21 recommendations were produced. They include specific pharmacological treatment, as well as the evaluation and monitoring of patients on this treatment, and post-operative pre-emptive treatment. Agreement above 70% was reached in 19 recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing total knee or hip replacement, a proper evaluation, follow-up, pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment of predictors of poor surgical outcomes should be performed, especially those related to pre-operative pain. This can improve post-operative pain and surgery outcomes.

Consenso experto sobre el uso clínico de los tratamientos por vía tópica en el manejo del dolor neuropático periférico / No disponible

Objetivo: Proponer a partir del consenso de un panel de expertos de ambito estatal que integre la experiencia clinica y la evidencia disponible mas actual, recomendaciones sobre el uso clinico de los tratamientos por via topica para el manejo del dolor neuropatico periferico (DNP). Métodos: Se proponen, a partir de una revision bibliografica sobre las distintas opciones terapeuticas topicas en DNP, una serie de criterios profesionales y recomendaciones clinicas para la mejora del uso de dichos agentes topicos. Se empleo el metodo Delphi modificado en dos rondas para contrastar las opiniones de un panel nacional de 52 reconocidos expertos, seleccionados mediante una estrategia en “bola de nieve” de entre el colectivo de anestesiologos de unidades del dolor (94 %) y otros especialistas (neurologos y traumatologos). Se evaluaron 61 recomendaciones clinicas agrupadas en 6 areas tematicas: a) DNP: tratamiento topico versus sistemico (11 items); b) dolor neuropatico postquirurgico, postraumatico y munones dolorosos (12 items); c) neuralgia posherpetica, intercostal y del trigemino (9 items); d) DNP por atrapamiento (8 items); e) sindrome de dolor regional complejo (11 items); y f) neuropatia diabetica (ND) y otras polineuropatias (por VIH, alcohol, toxicidad, etc.) (10 items). Se empleo una escala ordinal de tipo Likert de 9 puntos (desacuerdo/ acuerdo) para evaluar cada recomendacion. Tras la primera ronda de encuesta, se facilito al panel informacion del resultado (resultados estadisticos y opiniones libres de los panelistas) y se solicito la reconsideracion del voto sobre los items no consensuados. Resultados: Tras la primera ronda del panel se logró consenso en 37 de las 61 cuestiones planteadas. Al final de la segunda ronda el acuerdo ascendió hasta 46 ítems (75 %). En general, se aprecia consenso entre los expertos sobre la conveniencia de introducir los tratamientos tópicos en primera línea de tratamiento del DNP y sobre su mejor aceptación por los pacientes frente a los sistémicos. Asimismo, fue criterio compartido que la combinación de estos fármacos tópicos con los tratamientos sistémicos es una opción a considerar en el manejo de varios tipos de DNP. También se alcanzó un alto grado de acuerdo en aceptar, desde un punto de vista fisiopatológico, la indicación del tratamiento con parche de capsaicina al 8 % para varios tipos de DNP. Conclusión: Los expertos en el manejo clínico del DNP muestran un elevado nivel de acuerdo profesional con diversas recomendaciones terapéuticas analizadas en el estudio. La difusión de tales recomendaciones puede ayudar a la mejora del manejo rutinario de fármacos tópicos para el dolor neuropático en nuestro sistema sanitario (AU)

Objective: To propose consensus from a panel of state level that integrates clinical experience and the most current evidence, recommendations on the clinical use of topical treatments for the management of peripheral neuropathic pain (PNP). Methods: We propose, based on a literature review on topical therapeutic options in PNP, a series of professional standards and clinical recommendations for improving the use of these topical agents. We used the modified Delphi method in two rounds to contrast the views of a national panel of 52 renowned experts, selected by a “snowball” strategy among the group of anesthesiologists pain units (94 %) and other specialists (neurologist and trauma). We evaluated 61 clinical recommendations grouped into 6 areas: a) PNP systemic versus topical treatment (11 items); b) postsurgical neuropathic pain, post-traumatic and painful stumps (12 items); c) post-herpetic neuralgia, intercostal and trigeminal (9 items); d) PNP entrapment (8 items); e) CRPS (11 items); and f) diabetic neuropathy (DN) and other polyneuropathy (HIV, alcohol, toxicity, etc.) (10 items). We used a Likert- type ordinal scale of 9 points (disagree/agree) to evaluate each recommendation. After the first round of the survey, information was provided requested to reconsider the vote on itemsnot agree. Results: After the first round the panel consensus was achieved in 37 of the 61 issues raised. At the end of the second round of the agreement amounted to 46 (75 %). In general, there was consensus among experts on whether to introduce topical treatment in first line treatment of PNP and its greater acceptance by patients compared with systemic. He was also a shared view consider in the management of various types of PNP. Also reached a high level of agreement to accept, from a physiological point of view, the indication for treatment with capsaicin patch 8 % for various types of PNP. Conclusions: Experts in the clinical management of PNP show a high level of professional agreement with various therapeutic recommendations for study. The dissemination of such recommendations can help improving the routine management of topical drugs for neuropathic pain in our health system (AU)

Superficial acral fibromyxoma of the toe, with erosion of the distal phalanx. A clinical report.

Superficial acral fibromyxoma (SAFM) is a rare soft tissue tumor most often located in the ungual region of the fingers and toes. This tumor was first described in 2001, and since then very few cases have been reported. We present the case of a 35-year-old male with a SAFM located in the toe, with involvement of the nail and erosion of the distal phalanx. The lesion was surgically removed, and the histopathological study confirmed the diagnosis of SAFM. The differential diagnosis must be established with other myxoid tumors and with those lesions showing a predilection for the distal portions of the limbs. After 2 years, the patient remains disease free, with no disability of any kind.

[New, relevant and practical aspects of the treatment of neuropathic pain]. / Aspectos novedosos, relevantes y prácticos del tratamiento del dolor neuropático.

In the Spanish population it is difficult to calculate the prevalence of neuropathic pain (NP) although it is estimated that it is present in 40% of the cases of chronic pain. The treatment is not easy and we must choose between the different drugs, the most appropriate taking into account the effectivity in data from clinical trials, releaf of comorbidities associated to NP and less side effects. In this way, the Finnerup NB's work establishes an algorithm of treatment of NP and it is very helpful for clinicians in order to choose the most suitable treatment. In this work, the author recommends antiepileptic drugs, like gabapentin and pregabalin as first choice treatments. Amitriptiline, a tricycle antidepressant and opioids must be used only when there is a lack of response or intolerance.

Aspectos novedosos, relevantes y prácticos del tratamiento del dolor neuropático / New, relevant and practical aspects of the treatment of neuropathic pain

Es difícil calcular la prevalencia de dolor neuropático (DN) en la población española, aunque se estima que está presente en el 40% de los casos de dolor crónico. Su tratamiento no es fácil y debemos elegir entre los diferentes fármacos el más adecuado teniendo en cuenta su efectividad según datos obtenidos de estudios clínicos bien diseñados, el alivio de la comorbilidad asociada al DN y el menor número de efectos secundarios posibles. En este sentido, trabajos como el realizado por Finnerup NB, que establece un algoritmo de tratamiento, son de gran ayuda al clínico a la hora de elegir el más adecuado. En él se recomiendan los antiepilépticos gabapentina y pregabalina como los fármacos de primera elección, recurriendo a los antidepresivos tricíclicos (amitriptilina) y opioides (tramadol y oxicodona) como alternativas ante la falta de respuesta o intolerancia

In the Spanish population it is difficult to calculate the prevalence of neuropathic pain (NP) although it is estimated that it is present in 40% of the cases of chronic pain. The treatment is not easy and we must choose between the different drugs, the most appropriate taking into account the effectivity in data from clinical trials, releaf of comorbidities associated to NP and less side effects. In this way, the Finnerup NB´s work establishes an algorithm of treatment of NP and it is very helpful for clinicians in order to choose the most suitable treatment. In this work, the author recommends antiepileptic drugs, like gabapentin and pregabalin as first choice treatments. Amitriptiline, a tricycle antidepressant and opioids must be used only when there is a lack of response or intolerance

[Drug therapy of complex regional painful syndrome of the limbs as the cause of neuropathic pain]. / Tratamiento farmacológico del síndrome doloroso regional complejo de las extremidades como causa de dolor neuropático.

The term complex regional painful syndrome of the limbs seeks to clarify previous entities known as sympathicoreflex dystrophia and causalgia. Its diagnosis continues to be difficult despite the International Association for the Study of the Pain efforts for distinguish both entities. The predominant symptom is characteristically the neuropathic pain whose response to the current analgesic drugs is generally poor. Glucocorticoids are among the most frequent used drugs in the treatment of this syndrome; their effectiveness is, however, not entirely demonstrated and they give rise to important side effects that impede their use in patients with other concomitant conditions. Opioids are difficult to manage because of their side effects which require a strict control by the physician. The use of tricyclic antidepressants because of its analgesic effect is also associated to severe side effects that can be potentially lethal in patients with cardiopathy. In the heterogeneous group of anticonvulsant drugs gabapentin is regarded the treatment of choice because it seems to provide a high improvement of the quality of life in these patients besides a good safety profile.