Randomized study of pregabalin in patients with cancer-induced bone pain

Management of cancer pain due to bone metastasis

Bone metastases frequently occur in patients with cancer. Skeletal-related events (SREs), including pain, impaired mobility, hypercalcemia, pathological fracture, spinal cord and nerve root compression, and bone marrow infiltration, can decrease the quality of life of the patients and increase the risk of morbidity. The mechanism of pain due to bone metastasis is complicated and involves various interactions among tumor cells, bone cells, activated inflammatory cells, and bone-innervating neurons. Cancer pain due to bone metastasis can be crippling and a chronic state that causes sarcopenia. For pain management, it is important to diagnose whether the pain is based on background pain or breakthrough pain due to bone metastasis. In addition, the management goal of cancer pain due to bone metastasis is not only to achieve pain relief but also to prevent pain progression and SREs. Pain mechanisms should be applied to achieve optimal management. This review aims to discuss the mechanisms of cancer pain due to bone metastasis and review the recommended drug therapies.

Revision of Pharmacological Treatment Recommendations for Cancer Pain: Clinical Guidelines from the Japanese Society of Palliative Medicine

Background: Pain is one of the most common symptoms in cancer patients. The Japanese Society for Palliative Medicine (JSPM) first published its clinical guidelines for the management of cancer pain in 2010. Since then, more research on cancer pain management has been reported, and new drugs have become available in Japan. Thus, the JSPM has now revised the clinical guidelines using a validated methodology. Methods: This guideline was developed through a systematic review, discussion, and the Delphi method, following a formal guideline development process. Results: Thirty-five recommendations were created: 19 for the pharmacological management of cancer pain, 6 for the management of opioid-induced adverse effects, and 10 for pharmacological treatment procedures. Due to the lack of evidence that directly addressed our clinical questions, most of the recommendations had to be based on consensus among committee members and other guidelines. Discussion: It is critical to continue to build high-quality evidence in cancer pain management, and revise these guidelines accordingly.

Multifarious Targets and Recent Developments in the Therapeutics for the Management of Bone Cancer Pain

Bone cancer pain (BCP) is a distinct pain state showing characteristics of both neuropathic and inflammatory pain. On average, almost 46% of cancer patients exhibit BCP with numbers flaring up to as high as 76% for terminally ill patients. Patients suffering from BCP experience a compromised quality of life, and the unavailability of effective therapeutics makes this a more devastating condition. In every individual cancer patient, the pain is driven by different mechanisms at different sites. The mechanisms behind the manifestation of BCP are very complex and poorly understood, which creates a substantial barrier to drug development. Nevertheless, some of the key mechanisms involved have been identified and are being explored further to develop targeted molecules. Developing a multitarget approach might be beneficial in this case as the underlying mechanism is not fixed and usually a number of these pathways are simultaneously dysregulated. In this review, we have discussed the role of recently identified novel modulators and mechanisms involved in the development of BCP. They include ion channels and receptors involved in sensing alteration of temperature and acidic microenvironment, immune system activation, sodium channels, endothelins, protease-activated receptors, neurotrophins, motor proteins mediated trafficking of glutamate receptor, and some bone-specific mechanisms. Apart from this, we have also discussed some of the novel approaches under preclinical and clinical development for the treatment of bone cancer pain.

Neurophysiological Mechanisms Related to Pain Management in Bone Tumors

BACKGROUND

Primary and metastatic bone tumor incidence has increased in the previous years. Pain is a common symptom and is one of the most important related factors to the decrease of quality of life in patients with bone tumor. Different pain management strategies are not completely effective and many patients afflicted by cancer pain cannot be controlled properly. In this sense, we need to elucidate the neurophysiology of cancer-induced pain, contemplating other components such as inflammation, neuropathies and cognitive components regarding bone tumors, and thus pave the way for novel therapeutic approaches in this field.

AIM

This study aims to identify the neurophysiology of the mechanisms related to pain management in bone tumors.

METHODS

Advanced searches were performed in scientific databases: PubMed, ProQuest, EBSCO, and the Science Citation index to get information about the neurophysiology mechanisms related to pain management in bone tumors.

RESULTS

The central and peripheral mechanisms that promote bone cancer pain are poorly understood. Studies have shown that bone cancer could be related to neurochemicals produced by tumor and inflammatory cells, coupled with peripheral sensitization due to nerve compression and injury caused by tumor growth. The activity of mesolimbic dopaminergic neurons, substance P, cysteine/ glutamate antiporter, and other neurochemical dynamics brings us putative strategies to suggest better and efficient treatments against pain in cancer patients.

CONCLUSION

Cancer-induced bone pain could include neuropathic and inflammatory pain, but with different modifications to the periphery tissue, nerves and neurochemical changes in different neurological levels. In this sense, we explore opportunity areas in pharmacological and nonpharmacological pain management, according to pain-involved mechanisms in this study.

Non-Radiation Based Early Pain Relief Treatment Options for Patients With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer and Cancer Induced Bone Pain: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Cancer induced bone pain (CIBP) is frequent in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Radiation therapy continues to be the gold standard for treatment of painful bone metastases, however only a limited number of metastases can be irradiated. We evaluated non-radiation based early CIBP relief options in NSCLC through a systematic review.

METHODS

Systematic review including all prospective articles published between 01-1994 and 06-2020 on Pubmed, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov database. Inclusion: non-radiation based trials evaluating CIBP early pain relief options (initially defined as pain score evaluated within two weeks, because of no randomized trials, later inclusion broadened to pain score evaluated within six weeks) in ≥10 NSCLC patients. Radioisotope trials were excluded as these treatments have interactions with systemic anticancer therapy.

RESULTS

188 articles were found; 10 articles (6 randomized controlled (4 double blinded), 1 phase II single-arm, and 3 prospective trials) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Six of these trials consisted of ≥2 treatment arms, whereas the others were single-arm studies. In total, 554 NSCLC patients were evaluated in these trials. The included trials were very heterogeneous regarding evaluated treatment options, methods of pain measuring, and endpoints. No high-level evidence for specific early pain relief treatment options was found.

DISCUSSION

Non-radiation based studies evaluating treatment options to rapidly reduce CIBP in NSCLC are scarce. This systematic review shows that there is no high-level evidence to recommend a specific treatment for early pain relief. Future research should focus on early pain relief treatment options for CIBP in NSCLC.

Assessment of the anti-allodynic efficacy of a glycine transporter 2 inhibitor relative to pregabalin and duloxetine in a rat model of prostate cancer-induced bone pain

BACKGROUND

The pathobiology of prostate cancer-induced bone pain (PCIBP) is underpinned by both inflammatory and neuropathic components. Here, we used a rat model of PCIBP to assess the analgesic efficacy of a glycine transporter 2 (GlyT2) inhibitor (N-(6-((1,3-dihydroxypropan-2-yl)amino)-2-(dimethylamino)pyridin-3-yl)-3,5-dimethoxy-4-(4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy) benzamide) relative to two clinically available adjuvant drugs that are recommended for the relief of neuropathic pain, viz, pregabalin and duloxetine.

METHODS

PCIBP was induced in male Wistar Han rats following intra-tibial injection (ITI) of rat prostate cancer (AT3B) cells into the left tibia. Sham-rats received an ITI of heat-killed AT3B cells. PCIBP rats with fully developed mechanical allodynia in the ipsilateral hindpaws as assessed using von Frey filaments, received single oral (p.o.) bolus doses of the GlyT2 inhibitor (3-30 mg/kg), pregabalin (3-100 mg/kg), duloxetine (3-100 mg/kg), or vehicle. Baseline paw withdrawal thresholds (PWTs) were determined in the ipsilateral (injured side) and contralateral hindpaws immediately prior to dosing and at scheduled times for 3 h post dosing in individual animals.

RESULTS

Single oral bolus doses of the GlyT2 inhibitor (3-30 mg/kg) evoked partial pain relief at the doses tested in the ipsilateral hindpaws of PCIBP rats without any discernible behavioural side effects. By contrast, single oral bolus doses of pregabalin at 10-100 mg/kg evoked dose-dependent and complete alleviation of mechanical allodynia. By comparison, single oral bolus doses of duloxetine at doses up to 100 mg/kg lacked efficacy.

CONCLUSION

Oral administration of this GlyT2 inhibitor evoked partial pain relief in PCIBP rats and did not evoke central nervous system side effects in contrast to GlyT2 inhibitors reported by others.

Bone Pain in Cancer Patients: Mechanisms and Current Treatment

The skeletal system is the third most common site for cancer metastases, surpassed only by the lungs and liver. Many tumors, especially those of the breast, prostate, lungs, and kidneys, have a strong predilection to metastasize to bone, which causes pain, hypercalcemia, pathological skeletal fractures, compression of the spinal cord or other nervous structures, decreased mobility, and increased mortality. Metastatic cancer-induced bone pain (CIBP) is a type of chronic pain with unique and complex pathophysiology characterized by nociceptive and neuropathic components. Its treatment should be multimodal (pharmacological and non-pharmacological), including causal anticancer and symptomatic analgesic treatment to improve quality of life (QoL). The aim of this paper is to discuss the mechanisms involved in the occurrence and persistence of cancer-associated bone pain and to review the treatment methods recommended by experts in clinical practice. The final part of the paper reviews experimental therapeutic methods that are currently being studied and that may improve the efficacy of bone pain treatment in cancer patients in the future.

Reviewing without a Clinical Background Is Detrimental for Cancer Pain Management

Reviews are a fundamental space for summarizing and spreading knowledge on a particular topic. Methodologic skills may improve the clarity and the meaning of data presentation. A recent editorial choice provided an advanced update on a topic such as cancer pain, providing meaningful and appropriate information on hot topics of cancer pain management. Recent reviews have reported strange and misleading data, suggesting to some adjuvant drugs or opioids for mild-moderate pain instead of opioids on the basis of an incomprehensible analysis performed without any clinical sense. This is a serious problem because such information, published in an authoritative journal, could dis-educate oncologists in their daily practice.

A critical appraisal of gabapentinoids for pain in cancer patients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Gabapentinoids are frequently used in the management of cancer pain. In recent Cochrane systematic reviews, although there was an abundance of evidence relating to non-cancer pain, only a few studies related to cancer pain. This review summarizes recent randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the use of gabapentinoids for tumour-related (as monotherapy or part of combination therapy) and treatment-related pain.

RECENT FINDINGS

For tumour-related pain, ten out of thirteen studies showed statistically significant benefits in favour of gabapentinoids. When used, as part of monotherapy or combination therapy, benefits were observed in five out of six studies evaluating gabapentin, and in six out of eight studies evaluating pregabalin. For treatment-related pain, none of the four studies (two gabapentin, two pregabalin) showed statistically significant benefits in favour of gabapentinoids. Unfortunately, many of the studies included were limited by small sample size, lack of blinding, and inadequate follow-up.

SUMMARY

More and better quality studies are required, although it may be challenging to accomplish in this patient population. Gabapentinoids may offer benefits to cancer patients with pain, but careful titration and monitoring of adverse effects is necessary.

Assessment of Pregabalin Postapproval Trials and the Suggestion of Efficacy for New Indications: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

After a drug receives regulatory approval, researchers often pursue small, underpowered trials, called exploratory trials, aimed at testing additional indications. If favorable early findings from exploratory trials are not promptly followed by confirmatory trials, then physicians, patients, and payers can be left uncertain about a drug's clinical value (clinical agnosticism). Such findings may encourage the off-label use of ineffective drugs.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the relationship between exploratory and confirmatory postapproval trials for the blockbuster drug, pregabalin (Lyrica).

EVIDENCE REVIEW

Ovid MEDLINE and Embase databases were used to identify clinical trials published prior to January 2018 and that tested the efficacy of pregabalin for nonapproved indications. Indications, trial outcomes, publication dates, and trial design elements were recorded. Time elapsed was calculated between the generation of clinical agnosticism about pregabalin (ie, publications reporting positive or inconclusive evidence of efficacy on a primary endpoint) and it being addressed (publication of at least 1 confirmatory trial in the same indication, regardless of outcome).

FINDINGS

There were 238 trials identified that tested the efficacy of pregabalin in at least 33 indications; 5 indications eventually received European Medicines Agency and/or US Food and Drug Administration marketing approval. Sixty-seven percent (22 of 33) of first publications for new indications may have generated clinical agnosticism. Of those indications with at least 5 years of follow-up, 63% (17 of 27) may have generated agnosticism that was not addressed in confirmatory trials within 5 years. As pregabalin development expanded from indications that received regulatory approval to other indications, the linkage of exploratory to confirmatory trial publication diminished.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

After initial approval, exploratory evidence suggesting the value of pregabalin for new indications often went unconfirmed for extended periods of time. Poor coordination between exploratory and confirmatory testing may represent an important vehicle through which off-label prescription is recommended in clinical practice guidelines and encouraged in the absence of confirmatory trial evidence.

Gabapentin as an Adjuvant Therapy for Prevention of Acute Phantom-Limb Pain in Pediatric Patients Undergoing Amputation for Malignant Bone Tumors: A Prospective Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial

CONTEXT

Gabapentin is reported to have an analgesic effect of reducing phantom-limb pain (PLP) in adult patients. There is no study on preoperative use of gabapentin in pediatric population in terms of PLP prevention.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether gabapentin could be used as an adjuvant agent of opioid-based pain control to lower the rate of PLP in pediatric patients undergoing amputation for malignant bone tumors in observation period of 60 days postoperatively.

METHODS

Pediatric patients who were diagnosed with osteosarcoma or Ewing's sarcoma around the knee and underwent amputation from May 2013 to March 2016 were registered to this prospective double-blind randomized controlled trial. Four days before amputation, the patients were randomized to a study group receiving oral gabapentin, and a control group receiving oral placebo, both for 30 days. Pain intensity was recorded using the visual analog scale at different time points in all patients. PLP was assessed daily during their postoperative hospital stay and at the last follow-up visit 60 days after operation.

RESULTS

Of the 45 patients included in our study, 23 patients were randomized to gabapentin group and 22 to placebo group. There was no significant difference in preoperative baseline pain intensity between the two groups (P = 0.12). The overall postoperative pain intensity in gabapentin group was significantly lower than that in placebo group (P < 0.05). The rate of PLP in gabapentin group was significantly lower than that in placebo group (43.48% vs. 77.27%, P = 0.033) at the last follow-up visit.

CONCLUSIONS

In pediatric patients, gabapentin shows the effect of preventing PLP and reducing postoperative pain intensity in acute period after amputation. Initiation of gabapentin therapy as an adjuvant to opioids before amputation is beneficial with no severe adverse effect.

Opioids combined with antidepressants or antiepileptic drugs for cancer pain: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Combining antidepressant or antiepileptic drugs with opioids has resulted in increased pain relief when used for neuropathic pain in non-cancer conditions. However, evidence to support their effectiveness in cancer pain is lacking.

AIM

To determine if there is additional benefit when opioids are combined with antidepressant or antiepileptic drugs for cancer pain.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis. Randomised control trials comparing opioid analgesia in combination with antidepressant or antiepileptic drugs versus opioid monotherapy were sought. Data on pain and adverse events were extracted. Data were pooled using DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analyses, and heterogeneity was assessed.

RESULTS

Seven randomised controlled trials that randomised 605 patients were included in the review. Patients' pain was described as neuropathic cancer pain, cancer bone pain and non-specific cancer pain. Four randomised controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis in which opioid in combination with either gabapentin or pregabalin was compared with opioid monotherapy. The pooled standardised mean difference was 0.16 (95% confidence interval, -0.19, 0.51) showing no significant difference in pain relief between the groups. Adverse events were more frequent in the combination arms. Data on amitriptyline, fluvoxamine and phenytoin were inconclusive.

CONCLUSION

Combining opioid analgesia with gabapentinoids did not significantly improve pain relief in patients with tumour-related cancer pain compared with opioid monotherapy. Due to the heterogeneity of patient samples, benefit in patients with definite neuropathic cancer pain cannot be excluded. Clinicians should balance the small likelihood of benefit in patients with tumour-related cancer pain against the increased risk of adverse effects of combination therapy.

Randomized Double-Blind Trial of Pregabalin Versus Placebo in Conjunction With Palliative Radiotherapy for Cancer-Induced Bone Pain

PURPOSE

Cancer-induced bone pain (CIBP) affects one third of patients with cancer. Radiotherapy remains the gold-standard treatment; however, laboratory and clinical work suggest that pregabalin may be useful in treating CIBP. The aim of this study was to examine pregabalin in patients with CIBP receiving radiotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A multicenter, double-blind randomized trial of pregabalin versus placebo was conducted. Eligible patients were age ≥ 18 years, had radiologically proven bone metastases, were scheduled to receive radiotherapy, and had pain scores ≥ 4 of 10 (on 0-to-10 numeric rating scale). Before radiotherapy, baseline assessments were completed, followed by random assignment. Doses of pregabalin and placebo were increased over 4 weeks. The primary end point was treatment response, defined as a reduction of ≥ 2 points in worst pain by week 4, accompanied by a stable or reduced opioid dose, compared with baseline. Secondary end points assessed average pain, interference of pain with activity, breakthrough pain, mood, quality of life, and adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 233 patients were randomly assigned: 117 to placebo and 116 to pregabalin. The most common cancers were prostate (n = 88; 38%), breast (n = 77; 33%), and lung (n = 42; 18%). In the pregabalin arm, 45 patients (38.8%) achieved the primary end point, compared with 47 (40.2%) in the placebo arm (adjusted odds ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.81; P = .816). There were no statistically significant differences in average pain, pain interference, or quality of life between arms. There were differences in mood (P = .031) and breakthrough pain duration (P = .037) between arms. Outcomes were compared at 4 weeks.

CONCLUSION

Our findings do not support the role of pregabalin in patients with CIBP receiving radiotherapy. The role of pregabalin in CIBP with a clinical neuropathic pain component is unknown.

A comprehensive drug safety evaluation of pregabalin in peripheral neuropathic pain

Pregabalin is a commonly used therapy currently recommended as first-line treatment for a number of neuropathic pain (NeP) conditions. Since licensure, a number of clinical trials of pregabalin in different NeP conditions have been completed from which additional data on safety and tolerability can be drawn. In this analysis, patient-level data from 31 randomized clinical trials of pregabalin in peripheral NeP sponsored by Pfizer were pooled and assessed for incidence of adverse events (AEs). Incidence by age, disease condition, and race, together with risk differences and time to onset and resolution of AEs, was assessed. In total, 7,510 patients were included: 4,884 on pregabalin (representing 805 patient-years treatment) and 2,626 on placebo. Pregabalin vs. placebo risk analysis identified 9 AEs with a risk difference, for which the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) was > 1%: dizziness (risk difference [95% CI]: (17.0 [15.4 to 18.6]), somnolence (10.8 [9.5 to 12.1]), peripheral edema (5.4 [4.3 to 6.4]), weight increase (4.7 [3.9 to 5.5]), dry mouth (2.9 [2.1 to 3.8]), constipation (2.3 [1.5 to 3.2]), blurred vision (2.2 [1.6 to 2.9]), balance disorder (2.0 [1.5 to 2.5]), and euphoric mood (1.6 [1.2 to 2.0]). The most common AEs, dizziness and somnolence, typically emerged within the first 1 to 2 weeks of treatment and resolved 1 to 2 weeks later, without resulting in cessation of treatment. The data from this review provide information, indicating which AEs may be expected in patients treated with pregabalin, and suggest that careful dose titration to the highest tolerable dose is the most appropriate approach in clinical practice.