Efficacy and Safety of the Controlled-release Pregabalin Tablet (GLA5PR GLARS-NF1) and Immediate-release Pregabalin Capsule for Peripheral Neuropathic Pain: A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind, Parallel-group, Active-controlled, Phase III Clinical Trial

A phase 4 randomized active-controlled clinical study to compare the efficacy and safety of sustained-release pregabalin with immediate-release pregabalin in type 2 diabetic patients with peripheral neuropathic pain

AIMS

The objective of this study was to demonstrate that sustained-release (SR) pregabalin is non-inferior to immediate-release (IR) pregabalin in attenuating diabetic peripheral neuropathic (DPN) pain along with patient satisfaction and compliance.

METHODS

This was an 8-week, randomized, active-controlled, open-label, phase 4 study. Eligible subjects who had been on IR pregabalin for 4 weeks were randomized to 1:1 ratio to either continue with twice-daily IR pregabalin (75 mg), or to switch to once-daily SR pregabalin (150 mg). Primary efficacy endpoint was the change in visual analogue scale (VAS) scores after 8 weeks of treatment compared to baseline in both SR and IR pregabalin groups.

RESULTS

Among 130 randomized subjects, 125 patients were included in full analysis set. For the change in VAS pain score, the least squares (LS) mean were -17.95 (SR pregabalin) and -18.74 (IR pregabalin) and the LS mean difference between both groups was 0.79, with the upper limit of the 95 % confidence interval [-5.99, 7.58] below the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 9.2 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that the new once-daily SR pregabalin formulation is not different to the twice-daily IR pregabalin in alleviating DPN pain, indicating its potential as a promising treatment for DPN pain with a comparable safety profile.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05624853.

Bibliometric and visualized analysis of Neuropathic pain based on Web of Science and CiteSpace over the last 20 years

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this bibliometric analysis was to explore disciplinary hotspots and collaborative networks in research on neuropathic pain (NPP) research in the past 20 years.

METHODS

The articles related to NPP were obtained from Web of Science database. Global publications on neuropathic pain were analyzed in terms of different aspects such as number of papers, citation rates, authors, institutions, countries/regions, journals, and funding, as well as relevant partnerships and topic hotspots RESULTS: From 2001 to 2020, 6905 articles related to NPP research were published worldwide. The number of publications had increased over the last 20 years continually. Pain was the most productive and the most frequently co-cited journal. Baron R was the most productive and influential author. The most productive country and institution were USA and Harvard University respectively. Researchers and institutions from the USA, Japan and China were the core research forces. There was a broad and close cooperation in the field worldwide. The top authors and top institutions had collaborated relatively closely with others.

CONCLUSIONS

The research of NPP is a well-developed and prospective field of medical study. Pain, European Journal of Pain, and Molecular Pain show more interested in this field. The USA, Harvard University, and Ralf Baron were the top country, institution, and author, respectively. Global research collaboration is extensive. Top institutions and authors had cooperation.