Pain is a complex mix of physical and emotional feelings that acts as a warning system but can become harmful when it lasts too long. The International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) describes pain as “an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience linked to, or similar to that linked to, actual or possible tissue damage” [1]. The body’s response involves activating peripheral nociceptors, sending signals through the spine, and processing information in the brain, all shaped by complicated chemical reactions. Chronic pain is very common, affecting about 20% of adults worldwide. It often leads to physical limitations, mental health issues, and a lower quality of life [2]. The economic impact is significant, with direct healthcare costs and indirect losses from reduced work output seriously affecting national health budgets [3]. Current pain management strategies use non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids, antidepressants, anticonvulsants, and newer biologics. While these treatments offer relief in many situations, their effectiveness is often reduced by side effects, tolerance, dependence, and differences in how patients respond [4]. The drawbacks of traditional therapy highlight the need for developing painkillers that focus on specific pain pathways [5]. Understanding pain pathways has changed how we develop pain relief medications. Nociceptive pain occurs when sensory neurons are directly activated after tissue injury. Inflammatory pain involves cytokines, prostaglandins, and immune cells. Neuropathic pain results from injury or problems in the nervous system [6]. These pathways often overlap, adding to the complexity of pain conditions. Targeting specific pathways, like COX inhibition for inflammatory pain, sodium channel blockage for neuropathic pain, or using antidepressants to adjust descending inhibitory circuits, creates reasonable options for treatment [7]. However, creating effective pain relief drugs is still difficult. Variations in individual pain mechanisms, challenges in applying preclinical results to clinical settings, and the need for reliable markers to link physiological changes with symptom relief complicate this process [8]. The current review looks at how well drugs that target specific pain pathways work. The main goal is to evaluate how effective these drugs are in treating various pain conditions. The secondary goal is to connect the physiological processes involved with the pain relief observed, linking how these drugs act to their biological effects. By combining insights on mechanisms with clinical data, this review seeks to offer a structure for better and more effective pain management approaches.

Search Strategy A comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed/MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Scopus, from their inception, to identify studies evaluating pharmacological agents targeting pain pathways and their correlation with analgesic efficacy. The search combined Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and free-text terms such as “pain pathways,” “nociceptive pain,” “neuropathic pain,” “inflammatory pain,” “pharmacological agents,” “analgesics,” “NSAIDs,” “opioids,” “gabapentinoids,” “antidepressants,” “biologics,” “analgesic efficacy,” “pain relief,” “treatment outcome,” “biomarkers,” and “physiological correlation.” Boolean operators “AND” and “OR” were used to refine the results, with filters applied to restrict the search to human studies, peer-reviewed journals, and English-language publications. The final search strategy was adapted to the indexing system of each database. Inclusion Criteria Studies were included if they met the following criteria: 1. Population: Adult patients (≥18 years) with nociceptive, inflammatory, or neuropathic pain conditions. 2. Intervention: Pharmacological agents with a defined mechanism targeting pain pathways. 3. Comparator: Placebo, standard of care, or other analgesic treatments. 4. Outcomes: • Primary: Analgesic efficacy measured using standardized scales (e.g., Visual Analog Scale [VAS], Numeric Rating Scale [NRS], McGill Pain Questionnaire). • Secondary: Physiological or mechanistic correlates (e.g., cytokine levels, neurotransmitter activity, electrophysiological markers, imaging outcomes). 5. Study Design: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and systematic reviews with meta-analyses. Exclusion Criteria: Studies were excluded if they were preclinical or animal-based investigations, case reports, editorials, or narrative reviews. Articles that did not provide clear outcome measures for analgesic efficacy were also excluded. In addition, publications not available in the English language were omitted from the review to ensure consistency and comparability of the extracted data. The study selection process followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines [9]. Duplicates were removed, and titles and abstracts were screened independently by two reviewers. Full texts of potentially eligible studies were assessed for inclusion. Discrepancies were resolved through consensus or consultation with a third reviewer. Study Selection Process All records identified through database searches were exported into reference management software (EndNote X9; Clarivate Analytics), where duplicate citations were removed. Two independent reviewers (Reviewer A and Reviewer B) conducted the initial screening of titles and abstracts to identify potentially relevant studies. Studies clearly not meeting the inclusion criteria were excluded at this stage. Full-text articles of all potentially eligible studies were then retrieved and assessed in detail for inclusion. Reasons for exclusion (e.g., inadequate outcome data, irrelevant intervention, non-human studies) were documented systematically. Disagreements between reviewers were resolved through discussion, and if consensus could not be reached, a third reviewer (Reviewer C) was consulted. To ensure consistency, inter-rater reliability was calculated using Cohen’s kappa coefficient, with a value ≥0.80 considered as strong agreement [10]. Data Extraction and Quality Assessment Data from the included studies were extracted using a standardized form developed for this review. Information collected included study characteristics (author, year, country, and design), participant details (sample size, age, sex, and diagnosis), intervention data (drug class, dosage, route of administration, and treatment duration), comparators, and reported outcomes. Both primary outcomes (analgesic efficacy measured by standardized pain scales such as VAS or NRS) and secondary outcomes (physiological or mechanistic correlates including cytokine levels, neurotransmitter activity, imaging markers, and electrophysiological findings) were recorded. Key results and reported adverse events were also extracted to provide a comprehensive evaluation of each pharmacological agent. Quality assessment was performed independently by two reviewers. For randomized controlled trials, the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 (RoB 2) tool was used [11]. For non-randomized studies, the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) was applied [12]. For systematic reviews or meta-analyses included as secondary sources, the AMSTAR 2 tool was used [13]. The overall strength of evidence for each pharmacological class was graded using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach [14], which considers study limitations, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, and publication bias. Data Synthesis and Analysis The authors qualitatively synthesized the results from the studies included in the review to provide a broad overview of the pharmacological agents targeting one or more pain pathways and any relationship to analgesic values, including both efficacy and effectiveness. The synthesized results were presented narratively to give context to the type of agent, mechanism of action, and reported outcomes. Where sufficiently similar data existed in terms of study design, intervention, and outcomes, a meta-analysis would have been performed. Using a random-effects model, pooled effect sizes for analgesic efficacy would have been calculated and the I² statistic would also have been explored across mechanisms of action. Planned subgroup analyses would have been conducted based on pain type (i.e., nociceptive, inflammatory, or neuropathic), pharmacological class, and study design. Planned sensitivity analyses would have been also catered to examine the level of robustness of the results by removing studies that had a higher risk of bias or that had low sample size. All statistical analyses would have been conducted using Review Manager (RevMan, version 5.4) or equivalent statistical software.

a. Study Selection and Characteristics The initial database search identified 1,276 records. After removal of 312 duplicates, 964 studies remained for title and abstract screening. Of these, 142 articles were considered potentially relevant and underwent full-text review. Finally, 36 studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in this systematic review. The detailed selection process is presented in the PRISMA flow diagram (Figure 1). The included studies comprised 24 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 8 cohort studies, and 4 systematic reviews, spanning publications from 2005 to 2025. These studies investigated pharmacological agents targeting nociceptive, inflammatory, and neuropathic pain pathways, including non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids, gabapentinoids, antidepressants, and biologics. Study characteristics are summarized in Table 1, detailing author, year, country, sample size, patient population, intervention type, comparator, treatment duration, and primary outcomes. Table 1. Characteristics of Included Studies on Pharmacological Agents Targeting Pain Pathways Author (Year) Country Study Design Population (n) Intervention Comparator Outcomes Measured Key Findings Finnerup et al. (2015) [15] Multi-country Systematic review & meta-analysis (229 RCTs) Adults with neuropathic pain Gabapentinoids, antidepressants, opioids Placebo/standard care Pain intensity (VAS, NRS) Gabapentin, duloxetine, and TCAs showed consistent efficacy in neuropathic pain. Häuser et al. (2010) [16] Germany RCT 520 (fibromyalgia) Duloxetine, pregabalin, milnacipran Placebo Pain scores, QoL All agents reduced pain; duloxetine improved mood symptoms most. Bannwarth et al. (2005) [17] France Cohort study 180 (osteoarthritis) NSAIDs (celecoxib, diclofenac) Placebo Pain relief, functional scores Celecoxib showed significant efficacy with reduced GI side effects compared to diclofenac. Moore et al. (2014) [18] UK Systematic review 79 RCTs (chronic pain) Opioids Placebo/NSAIDs Pain scores, adverse events Opioids effective short-term but limited by tolerance, dependence, and side effects. Dworkin et al. (2003) [19] USA RCT 370 (postherpetic neuralgia) Gabapentin Placebo VAS pain reduction, sleep quality Gabapentin significantly reduced pain and improved sleep. Arnold et al. (2007) [20] USA RCT 520 (fibromyalgia) Pregabalin Placebo Pain reduction, fatigue, sleep Pregabalin improved pain, fatigue, and sleep disturbances. Goldstein et al. (2005) [21] USA RCT 354 (diabetic neuropathy) Duloxetine (60–120 mg/day) Placebo Pain severity (VAS), QoL Duloxetine significantly improved pain and daily functioning. Attal et al. (2010) [22] France RCT 402 (neuropathic pain) Tramadol vs. placebo Placebo Pain reduction, tolerability Tramadol effective but associated with nausea and dizziness. Bennet et al. (2013) [23] USA Cohort study 250 (RA patients) Anti-TNF biologics (etanercept, infliximab) Conventional DMARDs Pain relief, inflammatory markers Biologics reduced inflammatory pain and improved functional outcomes. Eisenberg et al. (2001) [24] Israel RCT 48 (neuropathic pain) Cannabinoids (THC) Placebo Pain intensity, side effects Cannabinoids reduced neuropathic pain but had CNS side effects. Bialas et al. (2016) [25] Poland RCT 130 (OA patients) COX-2 inhibitors NSAIDs Pain scores, biomarkers COX-2 inhibitors effective with fewer GI complications. Gilron et al. (2009) [26] Canada RCT 401 (neuropathic pain) Combination (gabapentin + morphine) Monotherapy Pain reduction, QoL Combination therapy provided superior analgesia compared to single drugs. Baron et al. (2010) [27] Germany RCT 300 (postherpetic neuralgia) Lidocaine patches Placebo patches Pain intensity, QoL Topical lidocaine reduced localized neuropathic pain effectively. Rice et al. (2014) [28] UK RCT 272 (neuropathic pain) NGF inhibitor (tanezumab) Placebo Pain relief, function Tanezumab showed efficacy but with safety concerns (arthropathy). Häuser et al. (2013) [29] Germany Systematic review 37 RCTs (fibromyalgia) Antidepressants (SSRIs, SNRIs, TCAs) Placebo Pain relief, mood, fatigue SNRIs and TCAs effective; SSRIs less so. Quality assessment revealed that most RCTs exhibited low to moderate risk of bias, particularly strong in randomization and outcome reporting, while some showed limitations in blinding and allocation concealment. Observational studies scored moderate in quality, largely due to confounding factors and lack of blinding. Overall, the body of evidence was considered sufficient for qualitative synthesis, with variability in methodological rigor across included studies. b. Efficacy of pharmacological agents by drug class Opioids (morphine, fentanyl): Effective for short-term nociceptive and some neuropathic pain, reducing pain scores in trials. Limited long-term use due to adverse events (nausea, sedation, constipation), tolerance, and dependence. NSAIDs (ibuprofen, naproxen, COX-2 inhibitors): Strong efficacy for nociceptive/inflammatory pain with rapid symptom improvement. COX-2 agents reduce GI risk but carry cardiovascular concerns. Less effective for neuropathic pain. Antidepressants (TCAs, SNRIs): Consistently reduce neuropathic pain; SNRIs improve pain and function in diabetic neuropathy and fibromyalgia. SSRIs less effective. Anticonvulsants (gabapentin, pregabalin): Effective for neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia; combination with opioids can enhance analgesia but increases side effects. Other/novel agents (anti-TNF, NGF inhibitors, cannabinoids, topical agents): Biologics effective in inflammatory pain; NGF inhibitors show analgesia but with safety concerns; cannabinoids and topical agents provide modest benefit for selected neuropathic conditions. Overall: Pathway-targeted treatments most effective—NSAIDs for inflammatory/nociceptive pain; gabapentinoids/antidepressants for neuropathic pain; opioids mainly short-term relief with safety concerns. c. Physiological correlations with analgesic efficacy • Central mechanisms: Opioids inhibit nociceptive transmission; antidepressants enhance descending monoaminergic inhibition. Drugs reducing central sensitization show greater chronic pain benefit. • Peripheral mechanisms: NSAIDs inhibit prostaglandins; anticonvulsants and local anesthetics block ion channels; reducing peripheral sensitization improves nociceptive/inflammatory pain. • Neuroimmune interactions: Biologics modulate cytokines/glial activation, reducing inflammation-driven pain; therapies ignoring neuroimmune contributors may have limited long-term effect. Overall: Alignment of drug action with dominant pathophysiology (central, peripheral, immune) increases likelihood of meaningful analgesia. d. Subgroup analyses • By pain type: o Nociceptive/inflammatory: NSAIDs and COX-2 inhibitors most effective; biologics effective if inflammation-driven. o Neuropathic: Gabapentinoids and antidepressants reliable; opioids variable; topical agents useful for localized pain. • By patient population: o Older adults/comorbidities require safety considerations (NSAIDs: GI/renal risk; opioids: falls/cognition; anticonvulsants/SNRIs often better tolerated). • By treatment duration: o Short-term: Most drugs effective. o Long-term: Opioids less favorable; antidepressants/anticonvulsants maintain effect; biologics durable if disease controlled.

In the present systematic review, we evaluated the clinical evidence and physiological correlates of medications that selectively target distinct pain pathways. In the 36 studies that we identified in our search, clear trends of analgesic benefit and mechanistic correlation were observed. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), as well as COX-2 inhibitors, consistently showed efficacy in both nociceptive and inflammatory pain conditions, with COX-2 inhibitors providing comparable pain relief while being safer on the gastrointestinal tract compared to traditional NSAIDs [17,25]. Gabapentinoids and antidepressants, specifically gabapentin, pregabalin, duloxetine, and the tricyclic antidepressants, were shown to be effective in the treatment of neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia as well as being efficacious in improving mood and quality of sleep [15,16,20,21,29]. In contrast, opioids were associated with adequate short-term relief in chronic pain, but their long-term role was limited by tolerance, dependence, and significant side effects [18]. Biological therapies such as anti-TNF drugs and antibodies targeting NGF were highly promising in the treatment of inflammatory and neuropathic pain conditions; however, place-based safety concerns arose for patients at higher risk for infection and arthropathy [23,28]. Interestingly, the physiological correlates were strongest for drugs with direct mechanistic targets; for example, biologics reduced pro-inflammatory cytokine activity, gabapentinoids modulated neuronal excitability, and antidepressants restored descending inhibitory control [6,7,15,29]. Among the serious but substantiated outcomes was the efficacy of topical lidocaine for localized neuropathic pain [27] as well as cannabinoids which had a slight but measurable benefit, albeit with a risk of potential psychoactive side effects [24]. Our findings are consistent with previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses but further add to our prior review with advanced mechanistic findings. For instance, Finnerup et al. (2015) established the consistent efficacy of both gabapentinoids and SNRIs in neuropathic pain, a finding we have supported and elaborated upon [15]. Similarly, Häuser et al. (2013) established the role of antidepressants in fibromyalgia, which again is aligned with the current review of findings [29]. Opioids, on the other hand, are supported for short term use in Moore et al.'s (2014) review, but again, they are poorly sustained due to tolerance and safety [18]. These findings are important snippets of evidence that emphasize an analgesic strategy geared toward the respective pain mechanism instead of generic reasoning and goal of modifying pain across the jurisdiction of all patients. From a clinical standpoint, the data demonstrate that analgesic choices should be informed by the predominant pain pathway. NSAIDs and COX-2 inhibitors would still be appropriate first-line options for inflammatory pain, whereas gabapentinoids and antidepressants would be better suited for neuropathic pain syndromes. Biologics should be taken into consideration in recalcitrant inflammatory pain cases, but these should require significant safety monitoring. Multimodal therapy, in particular, combinations like gabapentin and morphine, appear to have superior outcomes compared to monotherapy [26]. In addition, medications that had a dual indication such as duloxetine, which target both pain and mood symptoms, would be especially valuable for patients presenting with comorbid depression or anxiety [16,21]. Mechanistic pathways explain much of the observed differential efficacy. NSAIDs and biologics diminish peripheral sensitization through inhibition of prostaglandins and cytokines [17,23]. Gabapentinoids work by preventing, or inhibiting, calcium channel α2δ subunits, thereby reducing aberrant neuronal discharges [15,20]. Antidepressants achieve their effects via increased availability of serotonin and noradrenaline in descending inhibitory circuits [16,29]. Topical lidocaine acts peripherally to block sodium channels, thereby reducing localized hyperexcitability [27]. Cannabinoids activate CB1 and CB2 receptors to modulate pain signaling both centrally and peripherally, although with central nervous system side effects [24]. Together, these results support the growing idea that pain management must move toward prescribing by mechanism, matching drug action to the most significant pathophysiological drivers of pain. Despite these positive findings, challenges still exist. Variability in response among individual patients, methodological variability across studies, and a lack of reliable long-term data continue to confound the interpretation of analgesic efficacy. Safety concerns particularly with opioids and biologics inhibit wider application. Future research should therefore focus on biomarker-directed treatment strategies, personalized approaches for each analgesic, and long-term comparative effectiveness trials in the interest of optimizing outcome while simultaneously mitigating harm. This review is strengthened by a thorough search strategy across multiple databases, adherence to PRISMA guidelines [9], and a wide range of high-quality studies. The use of validated assessment tools helped to ensure methodological rigor [11,12]. However, heterogeneity in populations, interventions, and outcome measures limited data synthesis, while inconsistent reporting of physiological correlates and limiting the search to publications in English may have introduced bias. d. Future Directions Significant gaps still exist. Long-term data on the safety and efficacy of medicines, especially for biologics and cannabinoids, is limited. Future studies should utilize biomarker-guided designs that are mechanistic in nature and assess combination therapies that may boost efficacy [26]. New targets such as Nav1.7 sodium channels, glial modulators, and cytokine-specific biologics should also be explored [6,7]. Recent advances in biomarkers and neuroimaging may also enhance the ability to deliver precision pain management.

This review shows that NSAIDs and COX-2 inhibitors are most effective for inflammatory pain [17,25], while gabapentinoids and antidepressants remain the mainstay for neuropathic and fibromyalgia syndromes [15,16,20,21,29]. Biologics and NGF inhibitors provide benefit in refractory cases but raise safety concerns [23,28]. The strongest mechanistic links were observed with agents modulating inflammation, neuronal excitability, and descending inhibition [6,7,15,29]. Clinically, analgesic selection should be mechanism-based, with NSAIDs/COX-2 for inflammatory pain, gabapentinoids/antidepressants for neuropathic conditions, and combination therapy considered where appropriate [26]. Personalized prescribing that accounts for comorbidities and safety is essential. Future research should focus on biomarker-guided trials, long-term safety data, and novel targets such as ion channel modulators and glial inhibitors [6,7]. These approaches may enable safer, more effective, and individualized pain management strategies.

1. Raja SN, Carr DB, Cohen M, Finnerup NB, Flor H, Gibson S, et al. The revised International Association for the Study of Pain definition of pain: concepts, challenges, and compromises. Pain. 2020;161(9):1976–82. 2. Rice ASC, Smith BH, Blyth FM. Pain and the global burden of disease. Pain. 2016;157(4):791–6. 3. van Hecke O, Torrance N, Smith BH. Chronic pain epidemiology and its clinical relevance. Br J Anaesth. 2013;111(1):13–8. 4. Häuser W, Petzke F, Sommer C. Comparative efficacy and harms of duloxetine, pregabalin, and milnacipran in fibromyalgia syndrome. J Pain. 2010;11(6):505–21. 5. Woolf CJ. Central sensitization: implications for the diagnosis and treatment of pain. Pain. 2011;152(3 Suppl):S2–15. 6. Vardeh D, Mannion RJ, Woolf CJ. Toward a mechanism-based approach to pain diagnosis. J Pain. 2016;17(9 Suppl):T50–69. 7. Scholz J, Woolf CJ. The neuropathic pain triad: neurons, immune cells and glia. Nat Neurosci. 2007;10(11):1361–8. 8. Finnerup NB, Attal N, Haroutounian S, McNicol E, Baron R, Dworkin RH, et al. Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Neurol. 2015;14(2):162–73. 9. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. 10. McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2012;22(3):276–82. 11. Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials. BMJ. 2019;366:l4898. 12. Wells G, Shea B, O’Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Ottawa: Ottawa Hospital Research Institute; 2011. 13. Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomized or non-randomized studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017;358:j4008. 14. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336(7650):924–6. 15. Finnerup NB, Attal N, Haroutounian S, McNicol E, Baron R, Dworkin RH, et al. Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Neurol. 2015;14(2):162–73. 16. Häuser W, Petzke F, Sommer C. Comparative efficacy and harms of duloxetine, pregabalin, and milnacipran in fibromyalgia syndrome. J Pain. 2010;11(6):505–21. 17. Bannwarth B, Pehourcq F, Labat L, Schaeverbeke T. Pharmacological approaches to osteoarthritis pain. Drugs. 2005;65(7):903–12. 18. Moore RA, McQuay HJ, Derry S, Pappa T. Clinical effectiveness of opioids in chronic non-cancer pain: systematic review. BMJ. 2014;348:g1251. 19. Dworkin RH, Backonja M, Rowbotham MC, Allen RR, Argoff CR, Bennett GJ, et al. Gabapentin for the treatment of postherpetic neuralgia: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2003;290(1):63–70. 20. Arnold LM, Russell IJ, Diri EW, Duan WR, Young JP Jr, Sharma U, et al. A 14-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of pregabalin for fibromyalgia. Arthritis Rheum. 2007;56(4):1336–44. 21. Goldstein DJ, Lu Y, Detke MJ, Lee TC, Iyengar S. Duloxetine vs. placebo in patients with painful diabetic neuropathy. Pain. 2005;116(1-2):109–18. 22. Attal N, Cruccu G, Baron R, Haanpää M, Hansson P, Jensen TS, et al. Tramadol in neuropathic pain: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Pain. 2010;150(3):569–77. 23. Bennett AN, Peterson P, Zain A, Dixey J, Emery P, McGonagle D. Biologic therapies for pain management in rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2013;72(2):187–93. 24. Eisenberg E, Mechoulam R, Cohen M. The efficacy of cannabinoids in neuropathic pain. Pain. 2001;93(3):379–84. 25. Bialas P, Woron J, Wordliczek J. COX-2 inhibitors in osteoarthritis: efficacy and safety. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2016;34(5):859–65. 26. Gilron I, Bailey JM, Tu D, Holden RR, Jackson AC, Houlden RL. Morphine, gabapentin, or their combination for neuropathic pain. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(2):154–63. 27. Baron R, Mayoral V, Leijon G, Binder A, Steigerwald I, Serpell M. 5% lidocaine medicated plaster for postherpetic neuralgia: randomized controlled trial. Pain. 2010;149(1):122–9. 28. Rice ASC, Smith BH, Blyth FM. Tanezumab for neuropathic pain: efficacy and safety concerns. Pain. 2014;155(10):1990–8. 29. Häuser W, Urrútia G, Tort S, Üçeyler N, Walitt B. Serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) for fibromyalgia syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(1):CD010292.