Skip to content

Guidelines

TL;DR — Guidelines agree more on first-line drug classes than on sequencing, topical placement, opioids and devices. NeuPSIG supports TCAs, SNRIs and gabapentinoids first line (Finnerup 2015, PMID 25575710); French recommendations place pregabalin second line and integrate TENS, psychotherapy and stimulation (Moisset 2020, PMID 32276788). Assessment guidance requires lesion-based grading and targeted tests (Truini 2023, PMID 37253688).

Assessment

EAN–EFIC–NeuPSIG integrates history, examination, questionnaires, neurophysiology, imaging, biopsy and QST according to suspected lesion (Truini 2023, PMID 37253688).

The joint guidance separates case ascertainment from mechanism research: history establishes a plausible lesion/disease and distribution; bedside sensory signs support the grading; tests are selected to demonstrate the suspected lesion rather than ordered as a universal panel (Truini 2023, PMID 37253688). Earlier NeuPSIG guidance similarly cautioned that screening questionnaires identify neuropathic features but do not independently establish a diagnosis (Haanpää 2011, PMID 20851519).

Diagnostic task Guideline-compatible approach Common overreach
Identify lesion/disease Etiology-directed history, imaging, neurophysiology or pathology Inferring neuropathy from “burning” alone
Establish distribution Map symptoms and negative/positive signs Treating a questionnaire score as anatomical proof
Grade certainty Possible → probable → definite using convergent evidence Calling normal NCS exclusionary for small-fiber disease
Phenotype QST or structured bedside profile when it changes a research/clinical question Treating phenotype as a validated drug-selection test

NeuPSIG pharmacotherapy

The 229-study analysis found modest effects and evidence of about 10% publication-bias overstatement (Finnerup 2015, PMID 25575710).

NeuPSIG strongly recommends TCAs, SNRIs, pregabalin and gabapentin as first-line therapies; lidocaine patches, capsaicin 8% and tramadol are generally second line, while strong opioids and botulinum toxin A are later options with indication and safety qualifications (Finnerup 2015, PMID 25575710). These are class-level recommendations across neuropathic pain and do not override syndrome-specific evidence such as trigeminal neuralgia or CIPN.

French guidance

SNRIs, gabapentin and TCAs are proposed first line; pregabalin, combination therapy, capsaicin and botulinum toxin are placed later (Moisset 2020, PMID 32276788).

French recommendations are more explicit about non-pharmacologic modalities and place pregabalin differently from gabapentin, despite both being α2δ ligands. They recommend motor-cortex rTMS and TENS in selected settings and integrate psychotherapy, while retaining stronger caution around weak or heterogeneous procedural evidence (Moisset 2020, PMID 32276788); (Moisset 2021, PMID 34332778). This illustrates that a shared evidence base can yield different sequencing when panels weight misuse, adverse effects, feasibility and certainty differently.

AAN diabetes

AAN recommends multiple effective classes, switching class after inadequate response, and avoiding opioids for painful diabetic polyneuropathy (Price 2022, PMID 34965987).

AAN treats TCAs, SNRIs, gabapentinoids and sodium-channel blockers as class choices rather than declaring a single best molecule. It recommends assessing mood and sleep, offering a different effective class after inadequate efficacy or adverse effects, and not using opioids for painful diabetic polyneuropathy (Price 2022, PMID 34965987). The American Diabetes Association position statement similarly frames pregabalin or duloxetine as initial options and cautions about opioids, but its document also covers prevention, foot risk and autonomic neuropathy rather than pain alone (Pop-Busui 2017, PMID 27999003).

SCI guidance

SCI reviews/guidance favor pregabalin/gabapentin while acknowledging small evidence bases for many alternatives (Mehta 2016, PMID 26797114).

CanPainSCI's 2021 update used GRADE and AGREE II methods, reviewed 46 additional articles and added three screening/diagnosis plus eight treatment recommendations (Loh 2022, PMID 35124700). Pregabalin and gabapentin remain first-line anchors, but the guideline also emphasizes interdisciplinary rehabilitation, function, sleep and mood rather than treating pain intensity as the sole endpoint. Evidence developed in traumatic SCI should not be silently transferred to distal symmetric polyneuropathy.

Trigeminal neuralgia

EAN guidance prioritizes MRI evaluation and carbamazepine/oxcarbazepine, with surgery for refractory/intolerant disease (Bendtsen 2019, PMID 30860637).

This is the clearest exception to generic class-first neuropathic-pain algorithms. The paroxysmal syndrome, neurovascular-compression assessment and carbamazepine/oxcarbazepine evidence create a disease-specific pathway; continuous background pain and secondary causes influence prognosis and procedural decisions (Bendtsen 2019, PMID 30860637).

Etiology-specific guidance

Population Guideline position Quantified/evidentiary basis Important non-transferability
Painful diabetic polyneuropathy Offer an effective class; switch classes after failure; avoid opioids (Price 2022, PMID 34965987) Class-level systematic review; effect sizes modest Does not establish treatment for trigeminal neuralgia or central pain
Pain after SCI Pregabalin/gabapentin anchors within rehabilitation care (Loh 2022, PMID 35124700) Updated GRADE review, but many alternatives supported by small trials Central SCI pain differs from peripheral neuropathy
Established painful CIPN Duloxetine may be offered; benefit is limited (Loprinzi 2020, PMID 32663120) One pivotal randomized trial plus sparse alternatives Prevention and treatment are separate questions
Trigeminal neuralgia Carbamazepine/oxcarbazepine first; surgery if refractory/intolerant (Bendtsen 2019, PMID 30860637) Syndrome-specific evidence and imaging pathway Do not export this sodium-channel strategy wholesale to polyneuropathy
Cancer neuropathic pain Treat lesion, prognosis and co-analgesia context explicitly European national guidance varies (Piano 2014, PMID 23360414) Mixed nociceptive-neuropathic pain and limited prognosis alter priorities

Disagreement table

Topic Broad agreement Material disagreement Why it persists
Diagnosis Lesion/disease plus plausible distribution and signs Which confirmatory test and threshold Etiology and test availability differ
First-line TCA/SNRI/gabapentinoid classes recur Pregabalin placement; sodium-channel class wording Indirect comparisons and different safety weighting
Topical Role in localized peripheral pain Lidocaine recommendation strength; capsaicin sequence Low certainty can coexist with low systemic harm
Combination Add-on is reasonable after partial response When to combine and which pair OPTION-DM and COMBO-DN used different designs (Tesfaye 2022, PMID 36007534); (Tesfaye 2013, PMID 23732189)
Opioids Avoid routine early use Whether to name tramadol/strong opioids as later options or avoid entirely Short-term efficacy versus long-term population harm
Devices Restrict to selected refractory patients Indication, sham standard and required follow-up Large open-device effects but sparse blinded durability
Phenotyping Document sensory signs Whether QST should select drugs Positive oxcarbazepine interaction has not generalized consistently (Demant 2014, PMID 25139589)

Implementation

Guidelines do not replace renal, cardiac, fall, pregnancy or interaction assessment. Reassess function and stop ineffective treatment.

A guideline-concordant therapeutic trial needs a baseline, target dose or tolerated ceiling, time window, responder threshold, functional target and stopping plan. Failure of one molecule is not failure of its entire class unless exposure was adequate, but continuing an ineffective medicine because it appears on a first-line list is equally non-concordant (Price 2022, PMID 34965987).

Implementation audits should record eligibility exclusions. Older adults, people with advanced kidney disease, active substance-use disorder, pregnancy, severe psychiatric comorbidity or complex polypharmacy are commonly underrepresented in trials; guideline certainty cannot erase that external-validity gap (Attal 2023, PMID 37210279).

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
37253688 2023 Joint European assessment and testing framework A universal test panel or treatment response
25575710 2015 NeuPSIG evidence-to-recommendation backbone Individual best drug or syndrome-specific exception
32276788 2020 French integrated pharmacologic/non-pharmacologic pathway International consensus on sequencing
34965987 2022 AAN painful diabetic polyneuropathy update Treatment of all neuropathic etiologies
35124700 2022 CanPainSCI GRADE/AGREE II update Peripheral neuropathic-pain recommendations
30860637 2019 EAN trigeminal-neuralgia-specific pathway Generic polyneuropathy treatment hierarchy

Explicit controversies

  1. Pregabalin as first line or later line. NeuPSIG includes pregabalin first line (Finnerup 2015, PMID 25575710), whereas French guidance places it after gabapentin/SNRI/TCA options (Moisset 2020, PMID 32276788). The divergence reflects evidence interpretation and safety/implementation judgment, not a definitive head-to-head superiority trial.
  2. Topical lidocaine: weak evidence, favorable safety. Some panels retain it for localized pain because systemic harm is low, although randomized evidence quality is very low (Derry 2014, PMID 25058164). Whether safety can compensate for uncertainty is a value judgment that should be explicit.
  3. Opioid wording. NeuPSIG historically allowed later-line strong opioids (Finnerup 2015, PMID 25575710); AAN says opioids should not be used for painful diabetic polyneuropathy (Price 2022, PMID 34965987). Population scope and newer harm weighting explain part, but not all, of the discrepancy.
  4. Devices and sham evidence. Some guidance permits SCS for selected refractory indications, while systematic review judges long-term placebo-controlled evidence very uncertain (Mailis 2012, PMID 22606679); (O'Connell 2021, PMID 34854473). A minimum evidentiary threshold for costly invasive therapy remains contested.

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

  • Can guideline panels reconcile different GRADE judgments?
  • When should topical safety outweigh low certainty?
  • What evidence should devices require?
  • How rapidly should living guidelines update?

References

  1. 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
  2. Moisset X, Bouhassira D, Avez Couturier J, et al.. Pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for neuropathic pain: Systematic review and French recommendations. Rev Neurol (Paris). 2020;176:325-352. PMID 32276788
  3. Truini A, Aleksovska K, Anderson CC, et al.. Joint European Academy of Neurology-European Pain Federation-Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group of the International Association for the Study of Pain guidelines on neuropathic pain assessment. Eur J Neurol. 2023;30:2177-2196. PMID 37253688
  4. Price R, Smith D, Franklin G, et al.. Oral and Topical Treatment of Painful Diabetic Polyneuropathy: Practice Guideline Update Summary: Report of the AAN Guideline Subcommittee. Neurology. 2022;98:31-43. PMID 34965987
  5. Mehta S, McIntyre A, Janzen S, et al.. Systematic Review of Pharmacologic Treatments of Pain After Spinal Cord Injury: An Update. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2016;97:1381-1391.e1. PMID 26797114
  6. Bendtsen L, Zakrzewska JM, Abbott J, et al.. European Academy of Neurology guideline on trigeminal neuralgia. Eur J Neurol. 2019;26:831-849. PMID 30860637
  7. Haanpää M, Attal N, Backonja M, et al.. NeuPSIG guidelines on neuropathic pain assessment. Pain. 2011;152:14-27. PMID 20851519
  8. Attal N, Cruccu G, Baron R, et al.. EFNS guidelines on the pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain: 2010 revision. Eur J Neurol. 2010;17:1113-e88. PMID 20402746
  9. Moulin D, Boulanger A, Clark AJ, et al.. Pharmacological management of chronic neuropathic pain: revised consensus statement from the Canadian Pain Society. Pain Res Manag. 2014;19:328-35. PMID 25479151
  10. Moisset X, Bouhassira D, Attal N. French guidelines for neuropathic pain: An update and commentary. Rev Neurol (Paris). 2021;177:834-837. PMID 34332778
  11. Moisset X. Neuropathic pain: Evidence based recommendations. Presse Med. 2024;53:104232. PMID 38641202
  12. 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
  13. Thouaye M, Yalcin I. Neuropathic pain: From actual pharmacological treatments to new therapeutic horizons. Pharmacol Ther. 2023;251:108546. PMID 37832728
  14. Mailis A, Taenzer P. Evidence-based guideline for neuropathic pain interventional treatments: spinal cord stimulation, intravenous infusions, epidural injections and nerve blocks. Pain Res Manag. 2012;17:150-8. PMID 22606679
  15. Piano V, Verhagen S, Schalkwijk A, et al.. Diagnosing neuropathic pain in patients with cancer: comparative analysis of recommendations in national guidelines from European countries. Pain Pract. 2013;13:433-9. PMID 23279302
  16. Piano V, Verhagen S, Schalkwijk A, et al.. Treatment for neuropathic pain in patients with cancer: comparative analysis of recommendations in national clinical practice guidelines from European countries. Pain Pract. 2014;14:1-7. PMID 23360414
  17. Mulvey MR, Paley CA, Schuberth A, et al.. Neuropathic Pain in Cancer: What Are the Current Guidelines? Curr Treat Options Oncol. 2024;25:1193-1202. PMID 39102168
  18. Widerström-Noga E, Loeser JD, Jensen TS, et al.. AAPT Diagnostic Criteria for Central Neuropathic Pain. J Pain. 2017;18:1417-1426. PMID 28666966
  19. Widerström-Noga E. Neuropathic Pain and Spinal Cord Injury: Management, Phenotypes, and Biomarkers. Drugs. 2023;83:1001-1025. PMID 37326804
  20. Rosenberger DC, Blechschmidt V, Timmerman H, et al.. Challenges of neuropathic pain: focus on diabetic neuropathy. J Neural Transm (Vienna). 2020;127:589-624. PMID 32036431
  21. Hansson PT, Attal N, Baron R, et al.. Toward a definition of pharmacoresistant neuropathic pain. Eur J Pain. 2009;13:439-40. PMID 19324579
  22. Hershman DL, Lacchetti C, Dworkin RH, et al.. Prevention and management of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy in survivors of adult cancers: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:1941-67. PMID 24733808
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. Lefaucheur JP, Antal A, Ayache SS, et al.. Evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Clin Neurophysiol. 2017;128:56-92. PMID 27866120
  26. Loh E, Mirkowski M, Agudelo AR, et al. The CanPain SCI clinical practice guidelines for rehabilitation management of neuropathic pain after spinal cord injury: 2021 update. Spinal Cord. 2022;60:548-566. PMID 35124700
  27. Pop-Busui R, Boulton AJM, Feldman EL, et al. Diabetic neuropathy: a position statement by the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care. 2017;40:136-154. PMID 27999003
  28. 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
  29. Tesfaye S, Wilhelm S, Lledo A, et al. Duloxetine and pregabalin: high-dose monotherapy or their combination? The COMBO-DN study. Pain. 2013;154:2616-2625. PMID 23732189
  30. Derry S, Wiffen PJ, Moore RA, et al. Topical lidocaine for neuropathic pain in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;2014:CD010958. PMID 25058164
  31. 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
  32. 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