Back

Predictors of methadone response in chronic neuropathic pain

Barbosa, M. M.; Pentiado, J. A. M.; Kubota, G.; Martins, P. N.; Moreira, L. I.; Fernandes, A. M.; da Silva, V. A.; Junior, J. R.; Figueiredo, E. G.; Yeng, L. T.; Teixeira, M. J.; de Andrade, D. C.

2026-10-21 pain medicine
10.64898/2026.10.16.26365778 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: Although opioids are frequently prescribed for refractory chronic neuropathic pain, few data are available on baseline factors that may identify individuals more likely to respond and inform individually tailored practice. Methods: This was a post hoc, exploratory analysis of individual-level data from a placebo-controlled trial of methadone for chronic neuropathic pain (NCT05235191). Baseline clinical, psychological, psychophysical and radiological variables were tested for association with 30% or more pain reduction in the methadone group. The correlation between expectation of improvement and pain reduction was examined in both groups. Results: Of the 81 participants completing the 8-week follow-up, 28 (70%) on methadone and 14 (34.1%) on placebo achieved 30% or more pain reduction. In the methadone group, responders had higher baseline expectation of improvement (median 100 [80-100] vs. 55 [50-81]; p=0.004), which correlated moderately with percentage pain reduction (rs=0.508; p<0.001). Neither finding was observed in the placebo group (p=0.211 and p=0.161, respectively), although the correlation did not differ significantly between groups (p for interaction=0.728). Other clinical, sociodemographic, psychological and psychophysical variables were not associated with response. In the subsample with peripheral neuropathic pain and structural MRI (n=37), lower left precentral cortex volume was associated with response to methadone (p=0.041), and lower right paracentral volume with response to placebo (p=0.003). Conclusions: Baseline expectation may influence treatment outcomes, supporting its inclusion as a covariate to improve the precision of treatment effect estimates in trials, and its use in clinical practice to help tailor treatment to individual patients. These exploratory findings require confirmation in larger studies.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.