Skip to content

Not yet independently audited

This page was written from verified sources but has not yet passed the independent citation audit. Treat its claims as provisional.

Clinical trials landscape

TL;DR — The trial landscape spans repurposed drugs, ion-channel targets, topical agents, cortical stimulation, SCS/DRG and rehabilitation. Registry status is not efficacy: completed trials may be unpublished, “unknown” often reflects stale verification, and recruiting studies can fail. Current examples include phenotype-stratified pregabalin/duloxetine (NCT06614322), closed-loop DBS (NCT04144972), CIPN scrambler therapy (NCT06914557) and the phase 3 suzetrigine programme in painful diabetic neuropathy (NCT06628908, NCT07231419), all verified live on 2026-09-30. Two completed trials now have posted registry results without a located publication: mazisotine did not separate from placebo (NCT06074562), and capsaicin 8% in post-surgical neuropathic pain met one of two registered primary analyses unambiguously (NCT04967664).

Registry snapshot

NCT Population Intervention Status 2026-10-21
NCT06614322 Painful peripheral neuropathy QST + pregabalin/duloxetine Recruiting
NCT04144972 Refractory chronic pain Closed-loop DBS Recruiting
NCT06914557 CIPN Scrambler + usual care Recruiting
NCT06522685 CIPN Remote tDCS Not yet recruiting
NCT06010251 SCI pain tDCS + bodily illusion Recruiting
NCT05005026 SCI pain Virtual walking Recruiting

The snapshot is a monitoring sample, not an exhaustive trial census. Live ClinicalTrials.gov v2 records were re-queried on 2026-09-30 and again, all 22, on 2026-10-21; no tracked record changed overall status, enrollment or results-posting between those dates. The table below adds enrollment and planned completion because “recruiting” alone says little about maturity.

NCT Brief intervention domain Status Enrollment Planned/actual completion
NCT04144972 Closed-loop DBS for refractory chronic pain Recruiting 12 2030-10-24
NCT04699734 Peripheral nerve block in painful diabetic polyneuropathy Recruiting 16 2026-12-31
NCT05005026 Virtual walking for SCI neuropathic pain Recruiting 250 2026-09
NCT06010251 tDCS plus multisensory body representation after SCI Recruiting 30 2027-10-20 (moved from 2026-10-20 in a 2026-10-15 update)
NCT06522685 Remote motor-cortex tDCS and CIPN correlates Not yet recruiting 80 2029-06-30
NCT06614322 QST-stratified pregabalin/duloxetine (SPENDD) Recruiting 190 2028-06
NCT06834685 Photobiomodulation for CIPN pain Recruiting 70 2028-12
NCT06914557 Scrambler therapy plus duloxetine-based care Recruiting 50 2027-06-30
NCT06628908 Suzetrigine versus placebo and pregabalin in painful diabetic neuropathy (phase 3) Recruiting 1,100 2027-05-31
NCT07231419 Suzetrigine versus placebo in painful diabetic neuropathy (phase 3) Recruiting 734 2027-04-06
NCT06696443 Open-label long-term suzetrigine safety in painful diabetic neuropathy (phase 3) Active, not recruiting 455 2027-01-25
NCT05777317 10-kHz SCS plus medical management versus medical management (PDN-Sensory) Active, not recruiting 143 2026-07

Enrollment is the registry's planned or actual count, not the analyzable denominator. Completion dates can move and should be re-queried before any claim that results are overdue.

Date drift seen on 2026-09-30: the electroacupuncture trial NCT04917796 passed its estimated completion date (2026-09-24) while still listed as active, not recruiting; the virtual-walking trial NCT05005026 reached its estimated completion month (2026-09) while still listed as recruiting on a record last verified in 2025-09; the neurofeedback trial NCT02573766 is due on 2026-10-01; and NCT04699734 remains “recruiting” on a record last verified in 2020-12. None has posted results. SPENDD's record was updated on 2026-09-16 with status (recruiting), planned enrollment (190) and completion (2028-06) unchanged. PDN-Sensory's registered enrollment of 143 exceeds the 91 participants randomized in its six-month report (Hurley 2026, PMID 42713876).

Changes and drift seen on 2026-10-21: NCT06010251 moved its estimated completion a year later, to 2027-10-20 (record updated 2026-10-15). Both suzetrigine phase 3 records were updated (NCT06628908 on 2026-10-15, NCT06696443 on 2026-10-19) with status, planned enrollment and completion unchanged; the API does not expose what changed. NCT02573766 passed its 2026-10-01 estimated completion and is still active, not recruiting, on a record last updated 2025-10-14. NCT04917796 (completion 2026-09-24) and NCT05005026 (completion 2026-09, still recruiting) have not been updated since; PDN-Sensory (NCT05777317) is past its 2026-07 estimated completion, still active, not recruiting, last updated 2026-06-29. None of these has posted results.

Completed anchors

NCT00300222 tested capsaicin in PHN; NCT00407745 tested pregabalin in SCI pain; NCT03029884 tested closed-loop DBS. Completion does not establish positive results.

NCT Registry intervention/population Status on 2026-09-30 Enrollment Interpretation boundary
NCT00300222 NGX-4010/capsaicin for PHN Completed 400 Requires linked publication and prespecified outcome check
NCT00407745 Pregabalin for SCI neuropathic pain Completed 220 Registration does not show effect size or attrition
NCT00993070 Topical capsaicin in painful diabetic neuropathy Completed 33 Small phase 2 study; not the later 369-person pivotal RCT
NCT03029884 Closed-loop DBS for refractory neuropathic pain Completed 4 Feasibility scale; no comparative efficacy inference
NCT03176472 Ricolinostat in painful diabetic neuropathy Completed 282 Completion requires publication/results linkage
NCT06074562 LY3556050/mazisotine in diabetic neuropathic pain Completed; results posted 2026-07-30 404 No dose separated from placebo on the week-12 pain primary; sponsor-entered registry data, no publication located
NCT05660538 Suzetrigine (VX-548) dose-ranging with pregabalin reference in painful diabetic neuropathy Completed; results posted 2025-07-01 194 No placebo arm, so within-arm change cannot isolate drug effect
NCT04967664 Capsaicin 8% topical system versus low-dose capsaicin in post-surgical neuropathic pain (RISE) Completed; results posted 2026-09-21 412 Two registered primary analyses; the week-12 analysis has an interval including zero

Painful diabetes

NCT06074562 tested mazisotine; NCT03176472 ricolinostat; NCT00993070 capsaicin; NCT04699734 remains recruiting for nerve block.

Mazisotine: a posted null. The registry results for NCT06074562 (first posted 2026-07-30) show least-squares mean change in average pain intensity at week 12 of −1.58 with placebo (n=162) versus −1.68, −1.25 and −1.69 with mazisotine 50, 200 and 400 mg (n=79, 81 and 80). Differences from placebo were −0.10 (95% CI −0.61 to 0.40), 0.33 (−0.16 to 0.81) and −0.11 (−0.61 to 0.39), and the Bayesian dose-response posterior mean differences were −0.01, −0.00 and −0.02, each with an interval spanning zero. PubMed searches on 2026-09-30 and 2026-10-21 (and a Europe PMC search on 2026-10-21) located no publication of this trial, so these sponsor-entered figures have not been peer reviewed.

Suzetrigine: the sodium-channel test now in phase 3. Suzetrigine is described as a first-in-class selective NaV1.8 inhibitor approved in 2025 for acute pain, with chronic-pain indications still under study (Chen 2026, PMID 41481839). Its phase 2 diabetic-neuropathy study (NCT05660538) randomized to three suzetrigine doses or pregabalin without a placebo arm; posted week-12 least-squares mean changes in daily pain were −2.09 (95% CI −2.65 to −1.52) with pregabalin and −2.18 (−2.94 to −1.41), −2.11 (−2.67 to −1.55) and −2.26 (−2.82 to −1.70) with low, mid and high doses. Similar within-arm declines across all four arms cannot distinguish drug effect from placebo response. The two phase 3 efficacy trials restore the missing control: NCT06628908 (placebo and pregabalin comparators; planned n=1,100) and NCT07231419 (placebo; planned n=734) both use change in weekly average daily pain at week 12 versus placebo as the primary outcome, alongside an open-label long-term safety study whose primary outcome is adverse events to week 54 (NCT06696443). Enrollment is by diagnosis, not by genotype or excitability phenotype, so a positive result would support unenriched NaV1.8 blockade and a negative one would leave the enrichment question in OQ-3 open.

PDN-Sensory. The second randomized 10-kHz SCS trial reported six-month pain, neuropathy-score and nerve-fiber results (Hurley 2026, PMID 42713876); its record (NCT05777317) is active, not recruiting with no results posted. The published protocol allows optional crossover at six months and lists 12-month endpoints (Pop-Busui 2025, PMID 41309477), so later follow-up will be informative about durability among implanted participants but not about maintained randomized superiority—the same limit that applied to SENZA-PDN.

Painful-diabetes trials illustrate three development routes: reformulating established peripheral mechanisms (capsaicin), targeting novel molecular pathways (ricolinostat and LY3556050), and moving to procedures after pharmacologic failure. The successful 10-kHz SCS RCT enrolled 216 selected implant candidates and reported a 79% versus 5% six-month composite response, but used medical management rather than invasive sham (Petersen 2021, PMID 33818600). Novel-drug programs need target-engagement evidence because plausible ion-channel biology has repeatedly failed to translate into broad efficacy (Dickenson 2021, PMID 33899639).

CIPN

The field includes acupuncture (NCT04917796), neurofeedback (NCT02573766), photobiomodulation (NCT06834685) and scrambler therapy (NCT06914557).

Prevention trials have their own registry lag. CryoPac, a 268-person randomized cryotherapy-prevention trial that reported a null primary endpoint in 2026 (Lendorf 2026, PMID 42838271; see chemotherapy and toxic neuropathy), was still listed as recruiting (NCT05928429; planned enrollment 300; estimated completion 2026-11-30; last updated 2023-07-03) when fetched on 2026-10-21.

Registry status on 2026-09-30 was active, not recruiting for neurofeedback (NCT02573766; enrollment 91) and electroacupuncture (NCT04917796; enrollment 255), while photobiomodulation and scrambler therapy were recruiting. This modality diversity reflects a thin established-treatment base: duloxetine's pivotal five-week trial found a 0.73-point mean advantage over placebo (95% CI 0.26–1.20), and ASCO judged benefit limited (Smith 2013, PMID 23549581); (Loprinzi 2020, PMID 32663120).

CIPN trials should stratify or prespecify chemotherapy class, cumulative exposure, time since treatment and painful versus painless neuropathy. Pooling taxane, platinum, vinca-alkaloid and proteasome-inhibitor injury can dilute a mechanism-specific signal (Seretny 2014, PMID 25261162).

Failure patterns

Small samples, etiologic pooling, enriched withdrawal, short follow-up, mean-only outcomes and missing publication weaken inference (Sauzet 2013, PMID 23042476).

Blinding is asserted far more often than it is checked. Of 288 papers reporting pharmacotherapy or non-invasive neuromodulation trials in neuropathic pain, 36 (12.5%) reported a blinding assessment. Seventeen trials gave enough data to compute a Bang Blinding Index: participants appeared to remain blinded in 10 of 17 placebo arms and 10 of 17 treatment arms, while 6 placebo and 5 treatment arms had an index above 0.2, suggesting possible unblinding (Montag 2026, PMID 42751722). “Double-blind” in a trial report is therefore a design label, not a verified property.

Sauzet and colleagues found neuropathic-pain RCT quality and reporting uneven, with short durations and variable diagnostic rigor (Sauzet 2013, PMID 23042476). Enriched-enrollment randomized-withdrawal designs can improve assay sensitivity but estimate maintenance among initial tolerators/responders, not effectiveness in all treatment-naïve patients. Crossover designs improve efficiency for stable pain but require adequate washout and are vulnerable to period and carryover effects.

Design Strength Bias/estimand risk Minimum report
Parallel placebo-controlled Clear randomized contrast Placebo response and attrition Allocation, masking, responder thresholds and all randomized participants
Active-comparator Direct clinical choice Noninferiority margin and open-label bias Margin justification and both ITT/per-protocol analyses
Crossover Within-person efficiency Carryover, period effects, selective completion Washout, sequence, period estimate and first-period sensitivity
Enriched withdrawal Detects maintenance in initial responders Excludes nonresponders/intolerant participants Enrichment losses and restricted estimand
Device versus usual care Pragmatic treatment-package effect No invasive sham; expectation and crossover Failed trials, implantation denominator and procedural harms
Phenotype-stratified Tests treatment heterogeneity Low interaction power; multiplicity Prespecified phenotype and interaction CI

Design priorities

Use confirmed grading, report ≥30%/≥50% responders, function and harms, prespecify phenotype interactions, and follow devices for revision/explant.

“Clinically important” should not be assigned from a universal one-point rule. Across 66 chronic-pain studies/31,254 patients, median absolute minimal important change was 23/100 (IQR 12–39) and relative change 34% (IQR 22–45), with heterogeneity I²=99% and 96%; baseline pain explained much absolute-threshold variation (Olsen 2018, PMID 29793007). Trials should therefore report continuous change, cumulative responder curves, ≥30% and ≥50% response, and patient global change.

Harms require the same denominator discipline as efficacy. Drug trials should report adverse-event withdrawals and dose exposure; topical trials application pain and sensory change; implants failed trials, infection, revision and explant; and stimulation studies headache, seizure and discontinuation. A statistically significant pain mean without functional or harm context is not a complete net-benefit estimate (Edwards 2023, PMID 36198371).

Mechanism trials

Candidate channel biology is strong, but past modulators show why target engagement and phenotype enrichment are essential (Dickenson 2021, PMID 33899639).

Oxcarbazepine provided 0.7/10 more pain relief than placebo (95% CI 0.4–1.4) and showed a phenotype interaction of 0.7 (95% CI 0.01–1.4); NNT for ≥50% relief was 3.9 in the irritable versus 13 in the non-irritable nociceptor phenotype (Demant 2014, PMID 25139589). That result motivated precision designs but was not a universal validation of QST guidance.

A later lacosamide trial closed early with 63 randomized participants. The phenotype interaction CI crossed no effect (0.41, 95% CI −1.2 to 2.0); overall mean pain did not differ, although responder NNTs were 4.0 (95% CI 2.3–16.1) for ≥30% and 5.0 (95% CI 2.8–24.5) for ≥50% relief (Carmland 2024, PMID 37565715). The contrast is an explicit unresolved replication problem, not evidence that phenotyping is useless.

Translation

Registry-to-publication linkage and results reporting are core evidence-quality outcomes, not administrative details.

For each completed record, curation should reconcile registered primary outcome, time point, enrollment, analysis population and adverse events with the publication. A title-level match is insufficient: outcome switching, delayed publication and unreported negative secondary outcomes can distort the apparent landscape. Active records should be revisited after their completion date rather than labeled “failed” when a planned date passes.

Evidence interpretation map

The table makes the evidence role and inferential boundary explicit; it is not a replacement for the full reports.

PMID Year Evidence role What it cannot establish alone
23042476 2013 Empirical audit of neuropathic-pain RCT quality Current registry status or efficacy of a modality
29793007 2018 Quantifies instability of chronic-pain MCID A single universal responder threshold
25139589 2014 Positive phenotype-by-oxcarbazepine interaction Replicable class-wide precision rule
37565715 2024 Lacosamide phenotype-stratified replication attempt Definitive absence of a small interaction after early closure
33818600 2021 Large device-versus-medical-care PDN RCT Invasive-sham-specific effect
36198371 2023 Precision-pain development recommendations Validation of any one candidate biomarker
42713876 2026 Second randomized 10-kHz SCS trial with blinded sensory endpoints Sham-specific effect or post-crossover randomized durability
42751722 2026 Audit of blinding-assessment reporting in neuropathic-pain RCTs Whether unassessed trials were in fact unblinded

Explicit controversies

  1. Phenotype enrichment: signal or unstable subgroup? Oxcarbazepine produced a nominally significant interaction (Demant 2014, PMID 25139589); lacosamide did not reproduce prediction and was underpowered after early closure (Carmland 2024, PMID 37565715). SPENDD (NCT06614322) is therefore testing an unresolved strategy, not implementing a validated test.
  2. Implanted-device sham requirements. Large treatment-package effects in PDN (Petersen 2021, PMID 33818600) coexist with very-low-certainty placebo-controlled chronic-pain evidence (O'Connell 2021, PMID 34854473). Ethical and technical sham constraints remain central to interpretation.
  3. Mean pain versus responder outcomes. Lacosamide showed no overall primary mean effect but favorable responder NNTs (Carmland 2024, PMID 37565715). Multiplicity, distribution shape and prespecification determine whether that is a meaningful signal or chance secondary finding.
  4. Completed versus known. NCT03029884 is completed with enrollment four, while NCT06074562 is completed with enrollment 404; neither status alone reveals direction, publication completeness or clinical importance. NCT06074562 shows why the distinction matters: “completed” was uninformative until the posted results showed no separation from placebo, and those results still lack a publication. Registry completion must remain evidence-neutral, and posted results should be read as unreviewed data.
  5. Two primaries, two answers. RISE (NCT04967664) registered one primary analysis for non-US regulators and another for the US regulator. Averaged over weeks 2–12, capsaicin 8% reduced 24-hour average pain by 1.47 versus 1.01 points with low-dose capsaicin (difference −0.45, 95% CI −0.75 to −0.14; P=0.002; analysis set 198 versus 211). At week 12 alone the difference was −0.32 (95% CI −0.66 to 0.03) with a posted P-value of 0.035—an interval that includes zero beside a P-value below 0.05, which the retrieved record does not explain. Serious adverse events were posted for 14/198 versus 8/211 participants and other adverse events for 110/198 versus 42/211. Whether the trial is “positive” depends on which registered estimand is read, and no publication was located on 2026-09-30.

Minimum reporting controls

Domain Required report
Case definition Possible, probable or definite neuropathic pain
Etiology Lesion/disease and diagnostic evidence
Distribution Focal, length-dependent, dermatomal, at-level or below-level
Baseline phenotype Negative and positive sensory signs
Comparator Placebo/sham, active care or natural history
Exposure Dose, duration, adherence and co-interventions
Benefit Mean change plus ≥30% and ≥50% responders where applicable
Function Sleep, mobility, participation and patient global change
Harm Adverse events, withdrawals and serious events
Durability Follow-up after treatment and attrition
Subgroups Prespecified interaction test, not within-group significance
Missingness Denominator and imputation method

Reporting cautions

  • Do not infer lesion presence from a symptom descriptor.
  • Do not convert a group-average association into an individual diagnostic rule.
  • Do not treat statistical significance as clinically important benefit.
  • Do not compare NNTs without checking outcome threshold, duration and population.
  • Do not interpret an inactive or completed registry record as proof of efficacy.
  • Do not merge painful and painless neuropathy outcomes.
  • Do not omit adverse-event withdrawals from responder interpretation.
  • Do not call a post hoc subgroup predictive without an interaction test.
  • Do not generalize a focal peripheral result to central neuropathic pain.
  • State when evidence is short-term, indirect or restricted to a selected cohort.

Open questions

  • Will SPENDD validate QST-guided selection?
  • Can closed-loop systems outperform open-loop stimulation?
  • Which CIPN modality survives sham control?
  • How many completed trials remain unpublished?
  • Will placebo-controlled phase 3 trials confirm a suzetrigine effect that the placebo-free phase 2 study could not isolate?

References

  1. Sauzet O, Williams JE, Ross J, et al.. The characteristics and quality of randomized controlled trials in neuropathic pain: a descriptive study based on a systematic review. Clin J Pain. 2013;29:591-9. PMID 23042476
  2. Dickenson A. Why are sodium channel modulators not yet pharmacotherapeutic trailblazers for neuropathic pain? Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2021;22:1635-1637. PMID 33899639
  3. Finnerup NB, Attal N, Haroutounian S, et al.. Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Neurol. 2015;14:162-73. PMID 25575710
  4. Attal N, Poindessous-Jazat F, De Chauvigny E, et al.. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for neuropathic pain: a randomized multicentre sham-controlled trial. Brain. 2021;144:3328-3339. PMID 34196698
  5. Petersen EA, Stauss TG, Scowcroft JA, et al.. Effect of High-frequency (10-kHz) Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients With Painful Diabetic Neuropathy: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Neurol. 2021;78:687-698. PMID 33818600
  6. O'Connell NE, Ferraro MC, Gibson W, et al.. Implanted spinal neuromodulation interventions for chronic pain in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;12:CD013756. PMID 34854473
  7. Tesfaye S, Sloan G, Petrie J, et al.. Comparison of amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin, pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline, and duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin for the treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (OPTION-DM): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised crossover trial. Lancet. 2022;400:680-690. PMID 36007534
  8. Tesfaye S, Wilhelm S, Lledo A, et al.. Duloxetine and pregabalin: high-dose monotherapy or their combination? The "COMBO-DN study"--a multinational, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study in patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain. Pain. 2013;154:2616-2625. PMID 23732189
  9. Smith EM, Pang H, Cirrincione C, et al.. Effect of duloxetine on pain, function, and quality of life among patients with chemotherapy-induced painful peripheral neuropathy: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2013;309:1359-67. PMID 23549581
  10. Seretny M, Currie GL, Sena ES, et al.. Incidence, prevalence, and predictors of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain. 2014;155:2461-2470. PMID 25261162
  11. Loprinzi CL, Lacchetti C, Bleeker J, et al.. Prevention and Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy in Survivors of Adult Cancers: ASCO Guideline Update. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38:3325-3348. PMID 32663120
  12. Lin CS, Lin YC, Lao HC, et al.. Interventional Treatments for Postherpetic Neuralgia: A Systematic Review. Pain Physician. 2019;22:209-228. PMID 31151330
  13. Derry S, Rice AS, Cole P, et al.. Topical capsaicin (high concentration) for chronic neuropathic pain in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;1:CD007393. PMID 28085183
  14. Derry S, Wiffen PJ, Moore RA, et al.. Topical lidocaine for neuropathic pain in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;2014:CD010958. PMID 25058164
  15. Sdrulla AD, Guan Y, Raja SN. Spinal Cord Stimulation: Clinical Efficacy and Potential Mechanisms. Pain Pract. 2018;18:1048-1067. PMID 29526043
  16. D'Souza RS, Kubrova E, Her YF, et al.. Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation for Lower Extremity Neuropathic Pain Syndromes: An Evidence-Based Literature Review. Adv Ther. 2022;39:4440-4473. PMID 35994195
  17. Fregni F, El-Hagrassy MM, Pacheco-Barrios K, et al.. Evidence-Based Guidelines and Secondary Meta-Analysis for the Use of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Neurological and Psychiatric Disorders. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2021;24:256-313. PMID 32710772
  18. Lefaucheur JP, Aleman A, Baeken C, et al.. Evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS): An update (2014-2018). Clin Neurophysiol. 2020;131:474-528. PMID 31901449
  19. Edwards RR, Schreiber KL, Dworkin RH, et al.. Optimizing and Accelerating the Development of Precision Pain Treatments for Chronic Pain: IMMPACT Review and Recommendations. J Pain. 2023;24:204-225. PMID 36198371
  20. Attal N, Bouhassira D, Colvin L. Advances and challenges in neuropathic pain: a narrative review and future directions. Br J Anaesth. 2023;131:79-92. PMID 37210279
  21. Moisset X. Neuropathic pain: Evidence based recommendations. Presse Med. 2024;53:104232. PMID 38641202
  22. Kontor EK, Wellan C, Maaz HM, et al.. Emerging Therapeutic Modalities and Pharmacotherapies in Neuropathic Pain Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Parallel Randomized Controlled Trials. Pain Res Manag. 2024;2024:6782574. PMID 39748928
  23. Soliman N, Moisset X, Ferraro MC, et al.. Pharmacotherapy and non-invasive neuromodulation for neuropathic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Neurol. 2025;24:413-428. PMID 40252663
  24. da Cunha PHM, Lapa JDDS, Hosomi K, et al.. Neuromodulation for neuropathic pain. Int Rev Neurobiol. 2024;179:471-502. PMID 39580221
  25. Huerta MÁ, Garcia MM, García-Parra B, et al.. Investigational Drugs for the Treatment of Postherpetic Neuralgia: Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials. Int J Mol Sci. 2023;24. PMID 37629168
  26. Olsen MF, Bjerre E, Hansen MD, et al. Minimum clinically important differences in chronic pain vary considerably by baseline pain and methodological factors: systematic review of empirical studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;101:87-106.e2. PMID 29793007
  27. Demant DT, Lund K, Vollert J, et al. The effect of oxcarbazepine in peripheral neuropathic pain depends on pain phenotype: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phenotype-stratified study. Pain. 2014;155:2263-2273. PMID 25139589
  28. Carmland ME, Kreutzfeldt MD, Holbech JV, et al. The effect of lacosamide in peripheral neuropathic pain: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phenotype-stratified trial. Eur J Pain. 2024;28:105-119. PMID 37565715
  29. Hurley RW, Siraj ES, Sills S, et al. Evaluating Improvement in Pain and Sensory Function When Using High-Frequency (10-kHz) Spinal Cord Stimulation in Individuals With Painful Diabetic Neuropathy: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial (PDN-Sensory). Diabetes Care. 2026; online ahead of print. doi:10.2337/dc26-0758. PMID 42713876
  30. Montag LT, Soliman N, Moisset X, et al. Assessment of blinding in pharmacotherapy and noninvasive neuromodulation randomized controlled trials for neuropathic pain in adults. Pain. 2026; online ahead of print. doi:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000004120. PMID 42751722
  31. Chen SL, Liu MA, Swisher MW. Suzetrigine, a selective NaV1.8 inhibitor in acute and chronic pain: mechanistic insights, clinical outcomes, and future perspectives. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2026;39:183-187. PMID 41481839
  32. Pop-Busui R, Petersen EA, Levy BL, et al. Evaluating pain and neurological function with high frequency 10 kHz spinal cord stimulation in the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy: design of a multicentre, randomised controlled trial (PDN-Sensory). BMJ Open. 2025;15:e101647. PMID 41309477
  33. Lendorf ME, Bille MB, Krog SM, et al. Efficacy of Cryotherapy in Preventing Taxane-Induced Neuropathy: The CryoPac Randomised Controlled Trial. Ann Oncol. 2026. doi:10.1016/j.annonc.2026.09.014. PMID 42838271