Skip to main content
Download PDF

Effect of intramuscular diazepam infusion on herpes zoster-related pain in older patients: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BMC Anesthesiology volume 24, Article number: 193 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Objectives

This study evaluated the effectiveness, psychological effects, and sleep quality using intramuscular diazepam infusion compared with placebo in patients with herpes zoster (HZ)-related pain.

Methods

The patients were randomized to either the diazepam or control group. The diazepam group received an intramuscular injection of diazepam for 3 consecutive days, while the control group received an intramuscular injection of 0.9% normal saline. The primary outcome was pain relief on posttreatment day 4, as measured using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Moreover, anxiety and depression were evaluated using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD7) and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ9), respectively. Sleep quality was assessed using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI).

Results

In total, 78 patients were enrolled in the trial. The mean differences in VAS scores between the two groups were 0.62 (P = 0.049) on posttreatment day 3 and 0.66 (P = 0.037) on posttreatment day 4. The effective rates of pain management in the diazepam group ranged from 10.26 to 66.67%, which were higher than those in the control group on posttreatment days 3 and 4 (P < 0.05). The mean difference in PSQI scores between the diazepam and control groups was 1.36 (P = 0.034) on posttreatment day 7. No differences were found in the incidence of analgesia-adverse 1reactions between the diazepam and placebo groups.

Conclusions

The intramuscular injection of diazepam for 3 consecutive days provides effective pain management and improves the quality of life. Our study suggests that diazepam is more effective than the placebo in patients with HZ-related pain.

Trial registration

The study was prospectively registered at https://www.isrctn.com/trialist(Registration date: 24/01/2018; Trial ID: ISRCTN12682696).

Peer Review reports

Background

Herpes zoster (HZ) is caused by the reactivation of varicella zoster virus, which affects the sensory ganglia and their areas of innervation. HZ is characterized by severe neuralgic pain along the distribution of the affected nerve and crops of clustered vesicles over the area. A systematic review showed that the incidence rate of HZ ranged between 3/1000 and 5/1000 person-years. The incidence of HZ and the rate of HZ-associated complications increased with age, with 68% of cases occurring in those aged 50 years and older [1]. Postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) is the most common chronic complication of HZ and occurs in 20–50% of affected elderly patients [2, 3]. In China, the lifetime prevalence of HZ was 3.46% and the prevalence of PHN was 40% among people aged 50 and over [4]. Neurological symptoms include spontaneous pain, hyperalgesia, and allodynia, which seriously affect sleep, mood, and quality of life [5]. HZ-related pain is usually severe and hard to control. In order to reduce acute pain, paracetamol, NSAIDs, tramadol, opioids can be selected according to pain intensity [6]. In the management of PHN, tricyclic antidepressants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, gabapentin, or pregabalin represent the treatment of first choice [7]. But these drugs usually have obvious side effects, including giddiness, constipation, nausea/vomiting, and so on. In addition, even with appropriate medicine, pain relief is usually unsatisfactory and severe pain is longstanding. Therefore, it is necessary to find new effective drugs to treat HZ-related pain.

Diazepam, a potent benzodiazepine, is a positive allosteric modulator (no functional response alone but increases the response of the endogenous ligand) of the γ-aminobutyric acid type A (GABAA) receptor complex that binds to a unique site on the alpha-gamma subunit interface. Diazepam binds to benzodiazepine receptors [8], which are voltage-gated sodium channels [9]. It also binds to a unique benzodiazepine receptor, initially named peripheral benzodiazepine receptor but later called translocator protein (TSPO, 18 kDa), which appears to be localized on the mitochondrial membrane [10]. Clinically, diazepam is used to treat anxiety, acute alcohol withdrawal, skeletal muscle spasm, convulsive disorders (e.g., status epilepticus), insomnia, restless leg syndrome, and pre/postoperative sedation. There were some trials that diazepam was applied in the domain of pain. Some studies indicated that oral diazepam could reduce pain during different invasive procedures [11, 12]. One study showed that oral diazepam was no better than the placebo when combined with naproxen for acute lower back pain [13]. Clonazepam (other benzodiazepines) could ameliorate pain intensity in patients with burning mouth syndrome [14]. The use of diazepam to treat HZ has rarely been reported worldwide. In clinical practice, we found that intramuscular diazepam could mitigate pain intensity and reduce the number of breakthrough pain in patients with HZ. Therefore, this study explored whether intramuscular diazepam would provide better analgesic and other positive effects. The primary outcome was pain scores on posttreatment day 4, as measured using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS).

Materials and methods

Patients

Patients who were diagnosed with HZ-related pain persisting beyond acute phase were enrolled between July 1, 2018, and January 31, 2020. This study was approved by the institutional ethics committee (Approval No: XHEC-C-2017-105-2) and prospectively registered at https://www.isrctn.com/trialist. The inclusion criteria were as follows: age ≥ 50 years, with HZ-related pain persisting for 30 to 180 days; a VAS (100-mm unmarked line, with anchors: 0 = no pain and 100 mm = worst pain imaginable) score ≥ 40 mm or the number of breakthrough pain ≥ 3/day. The exclusion criteria were as follows: severe heart, lung, liver, and kidney diseases, myasthenia gravis, sleep apnea syndrome, a history of benzodiazepine allergy and refusal to follow-up. Patients who suffered from HZ-related pain persisting beyond acute phase at Xinhua Hospital were randomly assigned to the diazepam or control group.

Randomization and intervention

Participants were randomized by an investigator at a 1:1 ratio by generating sequences using SAS 9.3 software. The generated numbers were concealed in sequentially numbered envelopes. A doctor (Dr. Xu) drew the random numbers contained by envelopes and checked them on a random number table. Then, she allocated either diazepam or placebo treatment to each patient. The diazepam group received 5 mg/mL diazepam (2 mL, 10 mg), whereas a corresponding amount of saline (2 mL) was administered in the control group. A registered nurse (Ms. Hu) checked the basic information of the patients and administered the intramuscular infusion at 9:00 pm for three consecutive days. All patients were blinded to their group allocation.

During the study, all patients received the standard oral medicines (150 mg pregabalin 2 times daily; and 0.5 mg mecobalamin 3 times daily). The rescue analgesic (oxycodone-acetaminophen) was used when the VAS score ≥ 40 mm. Nerve block and other invasive interventional treatments were considered 4 weeks after the infusion if the patients reported no pain relief or worse pain.

Blinding

A doctor performed the randomization process and prepared all the solutions. All the other doctors, patients, medical staff members, and statistician were blinded to the treatment for each group.

Outcome evaluations

The primary outcome included pain scores on posttreatment day 4, as measured using VAS. The pain scores were obtained every 6 h and averaged for each 24-hour period posttreatment. The effective rate of pain was a percentage of pain relief greater than 50%. The secondary outcomes included pain-related outcomes, mental health, sleep quality, and safety. Pain-related outcomes included VAS scores measured at other time points, neuropathic pain measured using Douleur Neuropathique 4 questions (DN4), and rescue analgesics. Mental health outcomes included anxiety and depression at every time point during the first posttreatment month. Safety-related outcomes included the assessment of adverse effects. In the study, Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD7) was used to evaluate anxiety, Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ9) was used to assess depression, and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) was used to evaluate sleep quality.

Postoperative follow-up

The VAS pain scores and DN4 scores were assessed on pretreatment day 1 (baseline) and posttreatment days 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 14, and 28. The anxiety score, depression score, and quality of sleep were measured at baseline and on posttreatment days 7, 14, and 28. After discharge, the patients were followed up for 4 weeks at the outpatient clinic or by telephone or WeChat.

Sample size calculation

PASS (version 15) was used to calculate the required sample size based on the pain scores obtained on posttreatment day 4 as the primary outcome variable. The results of the preliminary study showed that the difference in the pain score on posttreatment day 4 between the two groups was 0.7. The standard deviation (SD) for the diazepam group was 0.96, whereas it was 0.95 for the control group. The power of test 1-β was 0.8. Using the one-sided value of α = 0.025, the sample size of each group should be at least 31. Accordingly, the study enrolled 78 patients and obtained a dropout rate of 20%.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS (version 22). The data collected included both continuous and categorical variables and were evaluated for normality using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. Normal quantitative data were expressed as mean and SD, whereas nonnormal quantitative data were expressed as median and IQR. Repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted to compare the changes in VAS pain scores between baseline and those on posttreatment days 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 14, and 28. The same statistical analyses were used to evaluate anxiety, depression, and quality of sleep scores. The Mann–Whitney U-test was used to analyze rescue analgesic use. Age, body mass index and course of disease were compared using two-tailed t-tests, whereas the categorical variables were compared using the two-tailed Fisher’s exact test. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Data are expressed as ratio (percentage), mean (SD), or median (IQR).

Results

Of the 98 enrolled patients, 20 were excluded. Eventually, 78 patients were finally randomized to either the diazepam (n = 39) or control group (n = 39; Fig. 1). No differences were found in the baseline demographic characteristics between the two groups (Table 1). In the study, only 5 patients experienced breakthrough pain; thus, thereby removing the need to perform the relevant statistical analysis.

Table 1 Demographic and baseline characteristics
Full size table
Fig. 1
figure 1

Participant flow diagram of the study

Full size image

The pretreatment VAS scores of the two groups were 6.01 and 6.08, respectively. The mean difference in VAS score between the two groups was 0.62 (P = 0.049) on posttreatment day 3 and 0.66 (P = 0.037) on posttreatment day 4 (Fig. 2A). The VAS scores at the other time points were similar between the two groups. The pain scores after treatment were significantly lower than the baseline in both groups (P < 0.01). A significantly greater proportion of patients who received diazepam therapy reported ≥ 50% pain relief compared with the control group on posttreatment days 3 and 4 (Day 3: 18/39 vs. 8/39, P = 0.016; Day 4: 21/39 vs. 12/39, P = 0.039; Fig. 2B). To delve deeper into the varying effects across different age cohorts, we segregated patients in each group into two subgroups using a cutoff age of 65. Our analysis revealed no significant differences between the two groups (age ≥ 65 years) across all time points. However, there were statistically significant differences observed in the main effect ‘group’ between the two groups (age < 65 years) (P = 0.02). The mean difference in VAS score between the two groups(age<65 years ) was 1.24 (P = 0.021) on posttreatment day 3, 1.39 (P = 0.014) on posttreatment day 4 and 1.97 (P = 0.018) on posttreatment day 14 (Fig. 2C). Additionally, a notably higher proportion of patients receiving diazepam therapy reported ≥ 50% pain relief compared to the control group (age < 65 years) on posttreatment days 3, 4, 7, 14, and 28 (Day 3: 8/26 vs. 2/26, P = 0.035; Day 4: 8/26 vs. 1/26, P = 0.028; Day 7: 11/26 vs. 4/26, P = 0.032; Day 14: 13/26 vs. 5/26, P = 0.02; Day 28: 14/26 vs. 6/26, P = 0.023; Fig. 2D).

Fig. 2
figure 2

(A-D). Pain conditions in patients with HZ-related pain between the diazepam and control group. (A) VAS scores at different time points; (B) Efficiency rates of pain (VAS scores decreased ≥ 50%) at different time points; (C) VAS scores at different time points(age<65 years, age ≥ 65 years); (D) Efficiency rates of pain (VAS scores decreased ≥ 50%) at different time points(age<65 years, age ≥ 65 years). Bars represent SD; ∗∗P < 0.01 and ∗P < 0.05. VAS: Visual Analog Score

Full size image

The mean difference in DN4 scores between the two groups was 0.69 (P = 0.031) on posttreatment day 3, 0.69 (P = 0.024) on posttreatment day 4, and 0.59 (P = 0.043) on posttreatment day 7 (Fig. 3A). The DN4 scores on all the other days were similar. We further assessed the degree of improvement in the DN4 scores and found that more patients in the diazepam group had a decrease of ≥ 50% in DN4 scores compared with the control group on posttreatment days 2, 3, 4, and 7 (Day 2: 0/39 vs. 7/39, P = 0.017; Day 3: 2/39 vs.13/39, P = 0.004; Day 4: 5/39 vs. 17/39, P = 0.003; Day 7: 10/39 vs. 21/39, P = 0.011; Fig. 3B).

Fig. 3
figure 3

(A-B). Neuropathic pain conditions in patients with HZ-related pain between the diazepam and control group. (A) Neuropathic pain conditions (DN4 scores) at different time points; (B) Efficiency rates of neuropathic pain (DN4 scores decreased ≥ 50%) at different time points. Bars represent SD; ∗∗P < 0.01 and ∗P < 0.05. DN4: Douleur Neuropathique 4 questions

Full size image

The GAD7 scores improved from posttreatment day 14 in the diazepam group, whereas they were similar at all-time points in the control group. However, no significant differences in the GAD7 scores were observed between the 2 groups (Fig. 4A).

Mild depression was assessed in both groups before treatment through the PHQ9 (5.90 vs. 5.92). Both groups showed improved PHQ9 scores from posttreatment day 7 (P < 0.05), but no significant differences were observed between the two groups at all-time points (Fig. 4B).

The mean difference in PSQI scores between the diazepam and control groups was 1.36 (P = 0.034) on posttreatment day 7 (Fig. 4C). Otherwise, the PSQI scores were similar on all other days. The PSQI scores of the two groups improved from posttreatment day 7.

Fig. 4
figure 4

(A-C). (A)Anxiety scores (GAD7), (B)depression scores (PHQ9), and (C)sleep quality scores (PSQI) in patients with HZ-related pain between the diazepam and control group. Bars represent SD; ∗∗P < 0.01 and ∗P < 0.05. GAD7, Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7SCARED; PHQ9, Patient Health Questionnaire-9; PSQI, Sleep quality was assessed using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index

Full size image

In the diazepam group, rescue analgesic use was lower on posttreatment days 4 and day 14 (Day 4: P = 0.047; Day 14: P = 0.042). On posttreatment day 14, more patients reduced their pregabalin use in the diazepam group (14/39 vs. 6/39, P = 0.038), whereas in the control group, more patients increased their use (2/39 vs. 9/39, P = 0.023). On posttreatment day 28, more patients reported decreased pregabalin use in the diazepam group (18/39 vs. 7/39, P = 0.008; Table 2). No significant difference was observed in the incidence of analgesia-adverse reactions between the diazepam and placebo groups at 28.21% and 23.08% respectively. Only a few patients reported nausea, vomiting, dizziness, or somnolence, and no serious adverse reactions were noted (Table 3).

Table 2 Change in analgesic use after diazepam infusion
Full size table
Table 3 Comparison of treatment related adverse events
Full size table

Discussion

This prospective, randomized controlled study showed that the intramuscular injection of diazepam for 3 consecutive days alleviated VAS scores, DN4 scores, and oral analgesic use and improved the quality of life of patients with neuropathic pain.

In the current study, the diazepam group showed superior analgesic effects and, notably, an opioid-sparing effect. Furthermore, the VAS scores were lower on posttreatment days 3 and 4, while the DN4 scores were lower on posttreatment days 3, 4, and 7. No clinical trials have evaluated diazepam for the treatment of HZ-related pain. A study on vaginal diazepam and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation showed their efficacy in improving pain and alleviating vestibular hypersensitivity in women with vestibulodynia [15]. A study showed that intrathecal midazolam, which is also a benzodiazepine, provided short-term improvement in pain and allodynia in patients with PHN [16]. We suspect that the pharmacological properties of midazolam and diazepam, and thus their analgesic effects, are similar. One study demonstrated that intraperitoneal administration of diazepam in rats markedly attenuated mechanical allodynia and thermal hyperalgesia [17]. Additionally, another study indicated that spinal diazepam administration partially mitigated neuropathic hypersensitivity, including spontaneous pain, allodynia, and hyperalgesia [18]. Thermal hyperalgesia, allodynia and hyperalgesia are integral components of DN4 scores. Remimazolam, a benzodiazepine derivative, exerts analgesic effects on neuropathic pain by modulating the bradykinin receptor B1 and influencing autophagy pathways [19]. Diazepam could modulate the GABA receptor to enhance GABA activity and inhibit pain transmission pathways in the spinal cord. The administration of GABA antagonists stimulates severe pain, whereas that of GABA neurotransmitters promotes pain relief [20]. Diazepam also binds to the unique benzodiazepine receptor TSPO, whose agonist could alleviate neuropathic pain [21, 22]. An animal trial showed that a single intraperitoneal injection of diazepam could inhibit neuropathic pain by binding TSPO [17].

HZ-related pain severely impacted patients’ sleep quality and mental health [23]. Sleep quality was improved in both groups with a statistical difference between the groups on posttreatment day 7. Additionally, diazepam exerts a hypnotic effect that can improve sleep. However, this may merely result from improvement in pain. The bidirectionality of the relationship between sleep and pain is widely accepted [24]. After treatment, the anxiety and depression scores improved in both groups, although no significant difference was found. As is well known, there’s a complex and bidirectional relationship between pain, anxiety and depression [25,26,27,28]. Chronic pain often co-occurs with anxiety and depression [29]. This complex relationship between pain and mental health disorders is due in part to the overlapping neural mechanisms by the observation from functional imaging studies [29,30,31]. Patients with postherpetic neuralgia had higher scores for anxiety and depression [32]. Although there’s no significant difference in anxiety and depression between the two groups in our study, but diazepam, as an anti-anxiety medication, reduced pain in the patients suffered from HZ-related pain. This maybe because of the complex relationship between anxiety and pain.

Acetaminophen, tramadol, and other opioids are usually used for HZ-related pain; however, they do not provide an adequate analgesic effect [6]. For patients with PHN, tricyclic antidepressants and anticonvulsants, such as amitriptyline and pregabalin, are the first-line medications [33, 34]. Despite their effectiveness, their adverse effects, including dizziness and somnolence, limit their use [35]. In our study, we conducted an analysis of analgesic consumption within the allowed dosage range. Patients in the diazepam group required lower amounts of oxycodone-acetaminophen at 4 days posttreatment. In addition, more patients in the diazepam group reduced the dose or ceased taking analgesics, whereas patients in the control group required higher amounts of pregabalin and oxycodone-acetaminophen at 2–4 weeks posttreatment. No significant difference in the incidence of analgesia-associated adverse reactions was observed between the two groups. In the diazepam group, only a few patients reported nausea, vomiting, dizziness, and hypersomnia, indicating the safety of intramuscular diazepam.

The study has some limitations. First, all 78 patients in the study were enrolled from the same center. Thus, a future multicenter study with a larger sample size needs to be conducted. Second, rescue analgesics were administered, which could be a confounding factor in analyzing the efficacy and safety of diazepam. Third, our primary outcome was the pain scores on posttreatment day 4, which were used to calculate the required sample size. Our study thus probably lacked sufficient statistical power (not enough patients included) to evaluate differences in other items.

Conclusions

The intramuscular injection of diazepam for 3 consecutive days alleviated pain and improved the quality of life. Our study suggests that diazepam is more effective than the placebo in patients with HZ-related pain.

Data availability

The original data and materials used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Abbreviations

HZ:

herpes zoster

PHN:

Postherpetic neuralgia

GABAA :

γ-aminobutyric acid type A

TSPO:

translocator protein

VAS:

Visual Analog Scale

DN4:

Neuropathique 4 questions

GAD7:

Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7

PHQ9:

Patient Health Questionnaire-9

PSQI:

Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index

References

  1. Yawn BP, Saddier P, Wollan PC, St Sauver JL, Kurland MJ, Sy LS. A population-based study of the incidence and complication rates of herpes zoster before zoster vaccine introduction. Mayo Clinic proceedings 2007, 82(11):1341–1349.

  2. Kim HJ, Ahn HS, Lee JY, Choi SS, Cheong YS, Kwon K, Yoon SH, Leem JG. Effects of applying nerve blocks to prevent postherpetic neuralgia in patients with acute herpes zoster: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Korean J pain. 2017;30(1):3–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Yong YL, Tan LT, Ming LC, Chan KG, Lee LH, Goh BH, Khan TM. The effectiveness and safety of topical capsaicin in postherpetic neuralgia: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Front Pharmacol. 2016;7:538.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Zhu Q, Zheng H, Qu H, Deng H, Zhang J, Ma W, Lin Y, Xie X, Qiu Q, Huang Z. Epidemiology of herpes zoster among adults aged 50 and above in Guangdong, China. Hum Vaccines Immunotherapeutics. 2015;11(8):2113–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Weinberg JM. Herpes zoster: epidemiology, natural history, and common complications. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2007;57(6 Suppl):S130–135.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gan EY, Tian EA, Tey HL. Management of herpes zoster and post-herpetic neuralgia. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2013;14(2):77–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Patil A, Goldust M, Wollina U. Herpes zoster: a review of clinical manifestations and management. Viruses 2022, 14(2).

  8. Squires RF, Brastrup C. Benzodiazepine receptors in rat brain. Nature. 1977;266(5604):732–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. McLean MJ, Macdonald RL. Benzodiazepines, but not beta carbolines, limit high frequency repetitive firing of action potentials of spinal cord neurons in cell culture. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1988;244(2):789–95.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Papadopoulos V, Baraldi M, Guilarte TR, Knudsen TB, Lacapère JJ, Lindemann P, Norenberg MD, Nutt D, Weizman A, Zhang MR, et al. Translocator protein (18 kDa): new nomenclature for the peripheral-type benzodiazepine receptor based on its structure and molecular function. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2006;27(8):402–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. McQuaid KR, Laine L. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials of moderate sedation for routine endoscopic procedures. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;67(6):910–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Abdel-Wahab M, Khattab AA, Liska B, Kassner G, Geist V, Toelg R, Richardt G. Diazepam versus fentanyl for premedication during percutaneous coronary intervention: results from the myocardial protection by fentanyl during coronary intervention (PROFIT) trial. J Interv Cardiol. 2008;21(3):232–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Friedman BW, Irizarry E, Solorzano C, Khankel N, Zapata J, Zias E, Gallagher EJ. Diazepam is no Better Than Placebo when added to Naproxen for Acute Low Back Pain. Ann Emerg Med. 2017;70(2):169–e176161.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Zborowski J, Konopka T. Comparison of Clonazepam and Tongue Protector in the treatment of burning Mouth Syndrome. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022, 19(15).

  15. Murina F, Felice R, Di Francesco S, Oneda S. Vaginal diazepam plus transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation to treat vestibulodynia: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2018;228:148–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Dureja GP, Usmani H, Khan M, Tahseen M, Jamal A. Efficacy of intrathecal midazolam with or without epidural methylprednisolone for management of post-herpetic neuralgia involving lumbosacral dermatomes. Pain Physician. 2010;13(3):213–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Chen SL, Zang Y, Zheng WH, Wei XH, Liu XG. Inhibition of Neuropathic Pain by a single intraperitoneal injection of diazepam in the rat: possible role of Neurosteroids. Chin J Physiol. 2016;59(1):9–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Munro G, Lopez-Garcia JA, Rivera-Arconada I, Erichsen HK, Nielsen E, Larsen JS, Ahring PK, Mirza NR. Comparison of the novel subtype-selective GABAA receptor-positive allosteric modulator NS11394 [3’-[5-(1-hydroxy-1-methyl-ethyl)-benzoimidazol-1-yl]-biphenyl-2-carbonitrile] with diazepam, zolpidem, bretazenil, and gaboxadol in rat models of inflammatory and neuropathic pain. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2008;327(3):969–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Xie H, Lu F, Liu W, Wang E, Wang L, Zhong M. Remimazolam alleviates neuropathic pain via regulating bradykinin receptor B1 and autophagy. J Pharm Pharmacol. 2021;73(12):1643–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Eaton MJ, Martinez MA, Karmally S. A single intrathecal injection of GABA permanently reverses neuropathic pain after nerve injury. Brain Res. 1999;835(2):334–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Liu X, Liu H, Xu S, Tang Z, Xia W, Cheng Z, Li W, Jin Y. Spinal translocator protein alleviates chronic neuropathic pain behavior and modulates spinal astrocyte-neuronal function in rats with L5 spinal nerve ligation model. Pain. 2016;157(1):103–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Hao C, Ma B, Gao N, Jin T, Liu X. Translocator protein (TSPO) alleviates Neuropathic Pain by activating spinal autophagy and nuclear SIRT1/PGC-1α signaling in a rat L5 SNL model. J pain Res. 2022;15:767–78.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Kawai K, Gebremeskel BG, Acosta CJ. Systematic review of incidence and complications of herpes zoster: towards a global perspective. BMJ open. 2014;4(6):e004833.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Whale K, Gooberman-Hill R. The importance of Sleep for People with Chronic Pain: current insights and evidence. JBMR plus. 2022;6(7):e10658.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Tham SW, Palermo TM, Holley AL, Zhou C, Stubhaug A, Furberg AS, Nielsen CS. A population-based study of quantitative sensory testing in adolescents with and without chronic pain. Pain. 2016;157(12):2807–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Bair MJ, Robinson RL, Katon W, Kroenke K. Depression and pain comorbidity: a literature review. Arch Intern Med. 2003;163(20):2433–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. McWilliams LA, Goodwin RD, Cox BJ. Depression and anxiety associated with three pain conditions: results from a nationally representative sample. Pain. 2004;111(1–2):77–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Khan WU, Michelini G, Battaglia M. Twin studies of the covariation of pain with depression and anxiety: a systematic review and re-evaluation of critical needs. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2020;111:135–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Hooten WM. Chronic Pain and Mental Health Disorders: Shared Neural Mechanisms, Epidemiology, and Treatment. Mayo Clinic proceedings 2016, 91(7):955–970.

  30. Hashmi JA, Baliki MN, Huang L, Baria AT, Torbey S, Hermann KM, Schnitzer TJ, Apkarian AV. Shape shifting pain: chronification of back pain shifts brain representation from nociceptive to emotional circuits. Brain. 2013;136(Pt 9):2751–68.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Bruffaerts R, Demyttenaere K, Kessler RC, Tachimori H, Bunting B, Hu C, Florescu S, Haro JM, Lim CC, Kovess-Masfety V, et al. The associations between preexisting mental disorders and subsequent onset of chronic headaches: a worldwide epidemiologic perspective. J pain. 2015;16(1):42–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Bouhassira D, Chassany O, Gaillat J, Hanslik T, Launay O, Mann C, Rabaud C, Rogeaux O, Strady C. Patient perspective on herpes zoster and its complications: an observational prospective study in patients aged over 50 years in general practice. Pain. 2012;153(2):342–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Koga R, Yamada K, Ishikawa R, Kubota Y, Yamaguchi K, Iseki M. Association between treatment-related early changes in psychological factors and development of postherpetic neuralgia. J Anesth. 2019;33(6):636–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Finnerup NB, Attal N, Haroutounian S, McNicol E, Baron R, Dworkin RH, Gilron I, Haanpää M, Hansson P, Jensen TS, et al. Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Neurol. 2015;14(2):162–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Johnson P, Becker L, Halpern R, Sweeney M. Real-world treatment of post-herpetic neuralgia with gabapentin or pregabalin. Clin Drug Investig. 2013;33(1):35–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

No applicable.

Funding

No funding.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Bingjie Ma, Meiling Xu and Lu Yang are co-first authors.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pain management, Xinhua Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200092, China

    Bingjie Ma, Xuehua Huang, Peiliang Wang, Yun Ji & Ke Ma

  2. Department of Pain management, The Fifth People’s Hospital of Qinghai Province, Xining city, 810007, Qinghai province, China

    Meiling Xu

  3. Department of Anesthesiology, Shanghai JiaoTong University Affiliated Sixth People’s Hospital, Shanghai, 200235, China

    Lu Yang

Authors
  1. Bingjie Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Meiling Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lu Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Xuehua Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Peiliang Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yun Ji
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ke Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Bingjie Ma contributed to study design, drafting of manuscript. Meiling Xu contributed to study design and data collection. Lu Yang contributed to data collection and analysis. Xuehua Huang, Peiling Wang and Yun Ji contributed to data collection, and follow-up. Ke Ma contributed to the study design, data analysis and interpretation, and revised the manuscript. All authors have read and approval the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ke Ma.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the institutional ethics committee of Xinhua Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine (Approval No: XHEC-C-2017-105-2) and registered at registered at https://www.isrctn.com/trialist (ISRCTN12682696). The study protocol was performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations. Written informed consent was obtained from all patients.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ma, B., Xu, M., Yang, L. et al. Effect of intramuscular diazepam infusion on herpes zoster-related pain in older patients: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. BMC Anesthesiol 24, 193 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-024-02576-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-024-02576-9

Keywords

BMC Anesthesiology

ISSN: 1471-2253

Contact us