Wirksamkeit und Wirkungsbeginn von Pregabalin bei Patienten mit neuropathischen Schmerzen

Loxapine for Treatment of Patients With Refractory, Chemotherapy-Induced Neuropathic Pain: A Prematurely Terminated Pilot Study Showing Efficacy But Limited Tolerability

Neuropathic pain is a debilitating and commonly treatment-refractory condition requiring novel therapeutic options. Accumulating preclinical studies indicate that the potassium channel Slack (K_Na1.1) contributes to the processing of neuropathic pain, and that Slack activators, when injected into mice, ameliorate pain-related hypersensitivity. However, whether Slack activation might reduce neuropathic pain in humans remains elusive. Here, we evaluated the tolerability and analgesic efficacy of loxapine, a first-generation antipsychotic drug and Slack activator, in neuropathic pain patients. We aimed to treat 12 patients with chronic chemotherapy-induced, treatment-refractory neuropathic pain (pain severity ≥ 4 units on an 11-point numerical rating scale) in a monocentric, open label, proof-of-principle study. Patients received loxapine orally as add-on analgesic in a dose-escalating manner (four treatment episodes for 14 days, daily dose: 20, 30, 40, or 60 mg loxapine) depending on tolerability and analgesic efficacy. Patient-reported outcomes of pain intensity and/or relief were recorded daily. After enrolling four patients, this study was prematurely terminated due to adverse events typically occurring with first-generation antipsychotic drugs that were reported by all patients. In two patients receiving loxapine for at least two treatment episodes, a clinically relevant analgesic effect was found at a daily dose of 20-30 mg of loxapine. Another two patients tolerated loxapine only for a few days. Together, our data further support the hypothesis that Slack activation might be a novel strategy for neuropathic pain therapy. However, loxapine is no valid treatment option for painful polyneuropathy due to profound dopamine and histamine receptor-related side effects. Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT02820519.

Pregabalin for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

This review updates part of an earlier Cochrane Review titled "Pregabalin for acute and chronic pain in adults", and considers only neuropathic pain (pain from damage to nervous tissue). Antiepileptic drugs have long been used in pain management. Pregabalin is an antiepileptic drug used in management of chronic pain conditions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of pregabalin for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase for randomised controlled trials from January 2009 to April 2018, online clinical trials registries, and reference lists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind trials of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing pregabalin (any route of administration) with placebo or another active treatment for neuropathic pain, with participant-reported pain assessment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality and biases. Primary outcomes were: at least 30% pain intensity reduction over baseline; much or very much improved on the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) Scale (moderate benefit); at least 50% pain intensity reduction; or very much improved on PGIC (substantial benefit). We calculated risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial (NNTB) or harmful outcome (NNTH). We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 45 studies lasting 2 to 16 weeks, with 11,906 participants - 68% from 31 new studies. Oral pregabalin doses of 150 mg, 300 mg, and 600 mg daily were compared with placebo. Postherpetic neuralgia, painful diabetic neuropathy, and mixed neuropathic pain predominated (85% of participants). High risk of bias was due mainly to small study size (nine studies), but many studies had unclear risk of bias, mainly due to incomplete outcome data, size, and allocation concealment.Postherpetic neuralgia: More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 300 mg than with placebo (50% vs 25%; RR 2.1 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.6 to 2.6); NNTB 3.9 (3.0 to 5.6); 3 studies, 589 participants, moderate-quality evidence), and more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (32% vs 13%; RR 2.5 (95% CI 1.9 to 3.4); NNTB 5.3 (3.9 to 8.1); 4 studies, 713 participants, moderate-quality evidence). More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 600 mg than with placebo (62% vs 24%; RR 2.5 (95% CI 2.0 to 3.2); NNTB 2.7 (2.2 to 3.7); 3 studies, 537 participants, moderate-quality evidence), and more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (41% vs 15%; RR 2.7 (95% CI 2.0 to 3.5); NNTB 3.9 (3.1 to 5.5); 4 studies, 732 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Somnolence and dizziness were more common with pregabalin than with placebo (moderate-quality evidence): somnolence 300 mg 16% versus 5.5%, 600 mg 25% versus 5.8%; dizziness 300 mg 29% versus 8.1%, 600 mg 35% versus 8.8%.Painful diabetic neuropathy: More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 300 mg than with placebo (47% vs 42%; RR 1.1 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.2); NNTB 22 (12 to 200); 8 studies, 2320 participants, moderate-quality evidence), more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (31% vs 24%; RR 1.3 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.5); NNTB 22 (12 to 200); 11 studies, 2931 participants, moderate-quality evidence), and more had PGIC much or very much improved (51% vs 30%; RR 1.8 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.0); NNTB 4.9 (3.8 to 6.9); 5 studies, 1050 participants, moderate-quality evidence). More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 600 mg than with placebo (63% vs 52%; RR 1.2 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.4); NNTB 9.6 (5.5 to 41); 2 studies, 611 participants, low-quality evidence), and more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (41% vs 28%; RR 1.4 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.7); NNTB 7.8 (5.4 to 14); 5 studies, 1015 participants, low-quality evidence). Somnolence and dizziness were more common with pregabalin than with placebo (moderate-quality evidence): somnolence 300 mg 11% versus 3.1%, 600 mg 15% versus 4.5%; dizziness 300 mg 13% versus 3.8%, 600 mg 22% versus 4.4%.Mixed or unclassified post-traumatic neuropathic pain: More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 600 mg than with placebo (48% vs 36%; RR 1.2 (1.1 to 1.4); NNTB 8.2 (5.7 to 15); 4 studies, 1367 participants, low-quality evidence), and more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (34% vs 20%; RR 1.5 (1.2 to 1.9); NNTB 7.2 (5.4 to 11); 4 studies, 1367 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Somnolence (12% vs 3.9%) and dizziness (23% vs 6.2%) were more common with pregabalin.Central neuropathic pain: More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 600 mg than with placebo (44% vs 28%; RR 1.6 (1.3 to 2.0); NNTB 5.9 (4.1 to 11); 3 studies, 562 participants, low-quality evidence) and at least 50% pain intensity reduction (26% vs 15%; RR 1.7 (1.2 to 2.3); NNTB 9.8 (6.0 to 28); 3 studies, 562 participants, low-quality evidence). Somnolence (32% vs 11%) and dizziness (23% vs 8.6%) were more common with pregabalin.Other neuropathic pain conditions: Studies show no evidence of benefit for 600 mg pregabalin in HIV neuropathy (2 studies, 674 participants, moderate-quality evidence) and limited evidence of benefit in neuropathic back pain or sciatica, neuropathic cancer pain, or polyneuropathy.Serious adverse events, all conditions: Serious adverse events were no more common with placebo than with pregabalin 300 mg (3.1% vs 2.6%; RR 1.2 (95% CI 0.8 to 1.7); 17 studies, 4112 participants, high-quality evidence) or pregabalin 600 mg (3.4% vs 3.4%; RR 1.1 (95% CI 0.8 to 1.5); 16 studies, 3995 participants, high-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence shows efficacy of pregabalin in postherpetic neuralgia, painful diabetic neuralgia, and mixed or unclassified post-traumatic neuropathic pain, and absence of efficacy in HIV neuropathy; evidence of efficacy in central neuropathic pain is inadequate. Some people will derive substantial benefit with pregabalin; more will have moderate benefit, but many will have no benefit or will discontinue treatment. There were no substantial changes since the 2009 review.

Pregabalin for the Treatment of Drug and Alcohol Withdrawal Symptoms: A Comprehensive Review

Treatments for physical dependence and associated withdrawal symptoms following the abrupt discontinuation of prescription drugs (such as opioids and benzodiazepines), nicotine, alcohol, and cannabinoids are available, but there is still a need for new and more effective therapies. This review examines evidence supporting the potential use of pregabalin, an α2δ voltage-gated calcium channel subunit ligand, for the treatment of physical dependence and associated withdrawal symptoms. A literature search of the MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases up to and including 11 December 2015 was conducted. The search term used was '(dependence OR withdrawal) AND pregabalin'. No other date limits were set and no language restrictions were applied. Works cited in identified articles were cross-referenced and personal archives of references also searched. Articles were included based on the expert opinions of the authors. There is limited evidence supporting the role of pregabalin for the treatment of physical dependence and accompanying withdrawal symptoms associated with opioids, benzodiazepines, nicotine, cannabinoids, and alcohol, although data from randomized controlled studies are sparse. However, the current evidence is promising and provides a platform for future studies, including appropriate randomized, placebo- and/or comparator-controlled studies, to further explore the efficacy and safety of pregabalin for the treatment of withdrawal symptoms. Given the potential for pregabalin misuse or abuse, particularly in individuals with a previous history of substance abuse, clinicians should exercise caution when using pregabalin in this patient population.

Chronic pain patients' treatment preferences: a discrete-choice experiment

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to identify, document, and weight attributes of a pain medication that are relevant from the perspective of patients with chronic pain. Within the sub-population of patients suffering from "chronic neuropathic pain", three groups were analyzed in depth: patients with neuropathic back pain, patients with painful diabetic polyneuropathy, and patients suffering from pain due to post-herpetic neuralgia. The central question was: "On which features do patients base their assessment of pain medications and which features are most useful in the process of evaluating and selecting possible therapies?"

METHODS

A detailed literature review, focus groups with patients, and face-to-face interviews with widely recognized experts for pain treatment were conducted to identify relevant treatment attributes of a pain medication. A pre-test was conducted to verify the structure of relevant and dominant attributes using factor analyses by evaluating the most frequently mentioned representatives of each factor. The Discrete-Choice Experiment (DCE) used a survey based on self-reported patient data including socio-demographics and specific parameters concerning pain treatment. Furthermore, the neuropathic pain component was determined in all patients based on their scoring in the painDETECT(®) questionnaire. For statistical data analysis of the DCE, a random effect logit model was used and coefficients were presented.

RESULTS

A total of 1,324 German patients participated in the survey, of whom 44 % suffered from neuropathic back pain (including mixed pain syndrome), 10 % complained about diabetic polyneuropathy, and 4 % reported pain due to post-herpetic neuralgia. A total of 36 single quality aspects of pain treatment, detected in the qualitative survey, were grouped in 7 dimensions by factor analysis. These 7 dimensions were used as attributes for the DCE. The DCE model resulted in the following ranking of relevant attributes for treatment decision: "no character change", "less nausea and vomiting", "pain reduction" (coefficient: >0.9 for all attributes, "high impact"), "rapid effect", "low risk of addiction" (coefficient ~0.5, "middle impact"), "applicability with comorbidity" (coefficient ~0.3), and "improvement of quality of sleep" (coefficient ~0.25). All attributes were highly significant (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The results were intended to enable early selection of an individualized pain medication. The results of the study showed that DCE is an appropriate means for the identification of patient preferences when being treated with specific pain medications. Due to the fact that pain perception is subjective in nature, the identification of patients´ preferences will enable therapists to better develop and implement patient-oriented treatment of chronic pain. It is therefore essential to improve the therapists´ understanding of patient preferences in order to make decisions concerning pain treatment. DCE and direct assessment should become valid instruments to elicit treatment preferences in chronic pain.

Time to improvement of pain and sleep quality in clinical trials of pregabalin for the treatment of fibromyalgia

OBJECTIVE

To determine the time to immediate and sustained clinical improvement in pain and sleep quality with pregabalin in patients with fibromyalgia.

DESIGN

A post hoc analysis of four 8- to 14-week phase 2-3, placebo-controlled trials of fixed-dose pregabalin (150-600 mg/day) for fibromyalgia, comprising 12 pregabalin and four placebo treatment arms.

PATIENTS

A total of 2,747 patients with fibromyalgia, aged 18-82 years.

METHODS

Pain and sleep quality scores, recorded daily on 11-point numeric rating scales (NRSs), were analyzed to determine time to immediate improvement with pregabalin, defined as the first of ≥2 consecutive days when the mean NRS score was significantly lower for pregabalin vs placebo in those treatment arms with a significant improvement at endpoint, and time to sustained clinical improvement with pregabalin, defined as a ≥1-point reduction of the baseline NRS score of patient responders who had a ≥30% improvement on the pain NRS, sleep NRS, or Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) from baseline to endpoint, or who reported "much improved" or "very much improved" on the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at endpoint.

RESULTS

Significant improvements in pain and sleep quality scores at endpoint vs placebo were seen in 8/12 and 11/12 pregabalin treatment arms, respectively (P < 0.05). In these arms, time to immediate improvements in pain or sleep occurred by day 1 or 2. Time to sustained clinical improvement occurred significantly earlier in pain, sleep, PGIC, and FIQ responders (P < 0.02) with pregabalin vs placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Both immediate and sustained clinical improvements in pain and sleep quality occurred faster with pregabalin vs placebo.

Once-daily gastroretentive gabapentin for postherpetic neuralgia: integrated efficacy, time to onset of pain relief and safety analyses of data from two phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies

CONTEXT

Treatment options for postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), a complication of herpes zoster, are commonly unsatisfactory and associated with adverse events.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy, onset of pain relief, and safety of gastroretentive gabapentin (G-GR) in patients with PHN.

METHODS

In two placebo-controlled studies, 357 patients with PHN were randomized to 1800mg G-GR and 364 patients were randomized to placebo taken with the evening meal. Patients underwent a two week titration, eight weeks of stable dosing, and one week of tapering. Efficacy assessments included change in average daily pain (ADP) score from baseline to Week 10, time to onset of pain relief, the proportion of patients feeling improved using the Patient Global Impression of Change, and the proportion of responders (≥30% pain reduction).

RESULTS

At Week 10, patients randomized to G-GR reported greater reductions in ADP score compared with placebo (-37.0% vs. -29.1; P=0.0025). More G-GR patients felt improved compared with placebo (44% vs. 33%; P=0.003) and responded to treatment (54% vs. 41%; P=0.001). As early as Day 2, greater pain reductions were observed for the G-GR group compared with the placebo group (-6.6% vs. -1.6%; P=0.0017). The median time to a one point or greater reduction in ADP score was four days for G-GR and six days for placebo (P<0.0001). The most frequently reported adverse events were dizziness (G-GR, 11%; placebo, 2%) and somnolence (G-GR, 5%; placebo, 3%).

CONCLUSION

PHN pain reduction after G-GR treatment can be observed as early as the second day of dosing and continues for at least 10 weeks.

Efficacy and safety of perioperative pregabalin for post-operative pain: a meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials

We calculated in a meta-analysis the effect size for the reduction of post-operative pain and post-operative analgesic drugs, which can be obtained by the perioperative administration of pregabalin. Three end-points of efficacy were analysed: early (6 h-7 days) post-operative pain at rest (17 studies) and during movement (seven studies), and the amount of analgesic drugs in the studies that obtained identical results for pain at rest (12 studies). Reported adverse effects were also analysed. The daily dose of pregabalin ranged from 50 to 750 mg/day. The duration of treatment in patients assessed for pain ranged from a single administration to 2 weeks. Pregabalin administration reduced the amount of post-operative analgesic drugs (30.8% of non-overlapping values - odds ratio=0.43). There was no effect with 150, and 300 or 600 mg/day provided identical results. Pregabalin increased the risk of dizziness or light-headedness and of visual disturbances, and decreased the occurrence of post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients who did not receive anti-PONV prophylaxis. The administration of pregabalin during a short perioperative period provides additional analgesia in the short term, but at the cost of additional adverse effects. The lowest effective dose was 225-300 mg/day.

5% lidocaine-medicated plaster vs other relevant interventions and placebo for post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN): a systematic review

Several pharmacological treatments are used to manage post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN). The use of topical analgesics, such as 5% lidocaine-medicated plaster (5% LMP), may be preferable to systemic treatments in that they are formulated to produce a local pain relieving effect with minimal systemic absorption. However, direct head-to-head comparisons are relatively few, and a rigorous assessment of the relative efficacy and safety of the various treatment options is lacking. The objective of this study was to compare 5% LMP for the relief of PHN with other relevant interventions and placebo. Six databases were searched up to May 2010. Quantitative methods for data synthesis were used, and a network meta-analysis was conducted. Twenty unique studies (32 publications) were included. Placebo-controlled studies showed 5% LMP to be effective in providing pain relief and reducing allodynia while adverse event rates were generally low. A comparison between 5% LMP and pregabalin indicated the non-inferiority of 5% LMP for pain reduction and showed greater improvement of quality of life for 5% LMP. Adverse events (AE) were significantly fewer with 5% LMP. In the network meta-analysis, only 5% LMP and gabapentin were associated with a greater change in pain from baseline than placebo [-15.50 (95% CI -18.85 to -12.16) and -7.56 (95% CI -12.52 to -2.59) respectively]. 5% LMP was shown to be more effective than capsaicin [-16.45 (95% CI -20.04 to -12.86)], gabapentin [-7.95 (95% CI -13.29 to -2.61)] and pregabalin [-13.45 (95% CI -19.19 to -7.71)]. For pain relief, two comparators were more effective than placebo [mean pain relief, gabapentin: 32.77 (95% CI 15.57-49.97); 5% LMP: 26.77 (95% CI 9.11-44.43)]. 5% LMP was shown to be comparable to gabapentin [-6.00 (95% CI -25.32-13.32)]. The results suggest that 5% LMP and gabapentin have similar effects on pain relief and that 5% LMP is more effective than capsaicin and pregabalin (change in pain from baseline). Topical agents, such as 5% LMP, are associated with fewer and less clinically significant AE than is the case for systemic agents. However, small numbers, and limited size and quality of included studies should be taken into account. Further studies are needed.

Pregabalin for acute and chronic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Antiepileptic drugs have been used in pain management since the 1960s. Pregabalin is a recently developed antiepileptic drug also used in management of chronic neuropathic pain conditions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess analgesic efficacy and associated adverse events of pregabalin in acute and chronic pain.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL to May 2009 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Additional studies were identified from the reference lists of retrieved papers and on-line clinical trial databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double blind trials reporting on the analgesic effect of pregabalin, with subjective pain assessment by the patient as either the primary or a secondary outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent review authors extracted data and assessed trial quality. Numbers-needed-to-treat-to-benefit (NNTs) were calculated, where possible, from dichotomous data for effectiveness, adverse events and study withdrawals.

MAIN RESULTS

There was no clear evidence of beneficial effects of pregabalin in established acute postoperative pain. No studies evaluated pregabalin in chronic nociceptive pain, like arthritis.Pregabalin at doses of 300 mg, 450 mg, and 600 mg daily was effective in patients with postherpetic neuralgia, painful diabetic neuropathy, central neuropathic pain, and fibromyalgia (19 studies, 7003 participants). Pregabalin at 150 mg daily was generally ineffective. Efficacy was demonstrated for dichotomous outcomes equating to moderate or substantial pain relief, alongside lower rates for lack of efficacy discontinuations with increasing dose. The best (lowest) NNT for each condition for at least 50% pain relief over baseline (substantial benefit) for 600 mg pregabalin daily compared with placebo were 3.9 (95% confidence interval 3.1 to 5.1) for postherpetic neuralgia, 5.0 (4.0 to 6.6) for painful diabetic neuropathy, 5.6 (3.5 to 14) for central neuropathic pain, and 11 (7.1 to 21) for fibromyalgia.With 600 mg pregabalin daily somnolence typically occurred in 15% to 25% and dizziness occurred in 27% to 46%. Treatment was discontinued due to adverse events in 18 to 28%. The proportion of participants reporting at least one adverse event was not affected by dose, nor was the number with a serious adverse event, which was not more than with placebo.Higher rates of substantial benefit were found in postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy than in central neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia. For moderate and substantial benefit on any outcome NNTs for the former were generally six and below for 300 mg and 600 mg daily; for fibromyalgia NNTs were much higher, and generally seven and above.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Pregabalin has proven efficacy in neuropathic pain conditions and fibromyalgia. A minority of patients will have substantial benefit with pregabalin, and more will have moderate benefit. Many will have no or trivial benefit, or will discontinue because of adverse events. Individualisation of treatment is needed to maximise pain relief and minimise adverse events. There is no evidence to support the use of pregabalin in acute pain scenarios.

Post-surgical neuropathic pain

Surgeons and anaesthetists are involved in Pain Medicine, as they have a responsibility to contribute to postoperative pain management and are often consulted about longer-term pain problems as well. A large component of persistent pain after surgery can be defined as neuropathic pain (NP). Nerves are injured during surgery and pain can persist after the surgical wound has healed. NP is because of a primary lesion or dysfunction of the peripheral or central nervous system. Prevalence estimates indicate that 2-3% of the population in the developed world experience NP. Persistent post-surgical NP is a mostly unrecognized clinical problem. The chronicity and persistence of post-surgical NP is often severely debilitating and impinges on the psychosocial, physical, economic and emotional well-being of patients. Options for treatment of any neuropathic factors are based on understanding the pain mechanisms involved. The current understandings of the mechanisms involved are presented. There is reasonable evidence for the efficacy of pharmacological management for NP. The aim of this article was to appraise the prevention, diagnostic work-up, the physical and particularly the pharmacological management of post-surgical NP and to provide a glimpse of advances in the field. It is a practical approach to post-surgical NP for all surgeons and anaesthetists. The take-home message is that prevention is better than waiting for post-surgical NP to become persistent.

Enriched enrollment: definition and effects of enrichment and dose in trials of pregabalin and gabapentin in neuropathic pain. A systematic review

AIMS

Enriched enrollment study designs have been suggested to be useful for proof of concept when only a proportion of the diseased population responds to a treatment intervention. We aim to investigate whether this really is the case in trials of pregabalin and gabapentin in neuropathic pain.

METHODS

We defined 'complete', 'partial' and 'non-enriched' enrollment, and examined pregabalin and gabapentin trials for the extent of enrichment and for effects of enrichment on efficacy and adverse event outcomes.

RESULTS

There were no studies using complete enriched enrollment; seven trials used partial enriched enrollment and 14 non-enriched enrollment. In pregabalin trials the maximum extent of enrichment was estimated at about 12%. Partial enriched enrollment did not change estimates of efficacy or harm. Over 150-600 mg maximum daily dose there was strong dose dependence for pregabalin.

CONCLUSIONS

A benefit of partial over non-enriched enrollment could not be demonstrated because the degree of enrichment was rather small, and possibly because enrichment produced little enhancement of treatment effect. Whether a greater degree of enrichment would result in important differences is unknown. Researchers reporting clinical trials with any enrichment must describe both process and extent of enrichment. As things stand, the effects of enriched enrollment remain unknown for neuropathic pain trials.

Efficacy and safety of pregabalin in treatment refractory patients with various neuropathic pain entities in clinical routine

AIMS

Conventional approaches to the management of neuropathic pain (NeP) often yield unsatisfactory results. We aimed to investigate pregabalin, a gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA)-analogue, in a wide range of pregabalin naive patients with treatment refractory NeP.

METHODS

Investigator-initiated, 4-week, open, prospective multicentre study in tertiary care. Pregabalin was prescribed at physicians' discretion based on patients' individual responses and tolerability, with or without concomitant analgesics. Consecutive patients were requested to fill in questionnaires at baseline and after 14 and 28 days with numerical pain rating scales (0, none; 10, worst possible), sleep rating scales, parts of the Brief Pain Inventory, Pain Experience Scale, Short Questionnaire on Current Burden and the SF-12 health-related quality of life scale.

RESULTS

In 55 patients, the mean pregabalin dose was 142 +/- 26 mg at day 1 and 348 +/- 161 mg at day 28. The mean pain score decreased from 6.5 +/- 1.7 to 5.5 +/- 1.9 at day 14 and to 4.9 +/- 1.8 at day 28 (-24.6%, p < 0.0001). Significant and rapid improvements were noted in the sleep interference score (p < 0.00001), Short Questionnaire on Current Burden (p < 0.01) and SF-12 (somatic score p < 0.001; psychological score p < 0.01). Pregabalin was well tolerated, and only three patients (5%) discontinued treatment prematurely.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that pregabalin is an effective and well-tolerated drug in difficult-to-treat NeP patients under daily clinical practice conditions. A flexible dosing approach appears appropriate to ensure patient compliance and treatment success.

Treatment of painful neuropathy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

With the aging of the population, treatment of painful neuropathies is becoming more and more important for neurological practice. This short review highlights recent findings and current problems.

RECENT FINDINGS

In addition to tricyclic antidepressants and gabapentin, the reliability of which is established, some drugs have more recently been demonstrated to be efficacious: major and minor opioids, pregabalin, and serotonin-noradrenaline-reuptake inhibitors. In contrast, some other drugs have yielded disappointing results: memantine, mexiletine, topiramate, and - very recently - lamotrigine. Three main questions are currently being debated. Notwithstanding their proven efficacy, should opioids be used in chronic noncancer pain? In which patients should serotonin-noradrenaline-reuptake inhibitors be preferred to tricyclic antidepressants? What is the difference between pregabalin and gabapentin? The whole field suffers from important limitations that make evidence-based medical data hard to translate in clinical practice: most clinical trials were and still are focused on two conditions only (diabetic neuropathy and postherpetic neuralgia) and studies on polytherapy are insufficient.

SUMMARY

A large variety of drugs are being tried in the treatment of painful neuropathy. Neurologists now have a wide choice. Recent publications can help in choosing the best treatment course.

Postoperative pain management: new, convenient analgesic therapies

Despite the potential benefits to patient health that can result from effective pain management, survey results continue to indicate that acute postoperative pain remains inadequately managed worldwide. The development of novel analgesics and advanced analgesic delivery techniques has the potential to improve current strategies for postoperative pain management. This article outlines the pharmacological principles and clinical utility of recently developed agents and a novel drug delivery device indicated for the management of moderate-to-severe acute postoperative pain.