A randomized control trial of duloxetine and gabapentin in painful diabetic neuropathy

Effectiveness of Duloxetine versus Other Therapeutic Modalities in Patients with Diabetic Neuropathic Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objectives: Diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) is a chronic complication of diabetes mellitus (DM) with symptoms like intense pain and impaired quality of life. This condition has no treatment; instead, the pain is managed with various antidepressants, including duloxetine. The aim of this study is to analyze the evidence on the efficacy of duloxetine in the management of DPN. Methods: A systematic search in different databases was conducted using the keywords "diabetic neuropathy", "duloxetine therapy", "neuropathic pain", and "Diabetes Mellitus". Finally, eight studies were included in this meta-analysis. Results: All articles comparing duloxetine at different doses vs. a placebo reported significant differences in favor of duloxetine on pain scales like 24 h Average Pain Severity (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -1.06, confidence interval [CI] = -1.09 to -1.03, and p < 0.00001) and BPI Severity (SMD = -0.70, CI = -0.72 to -0.68, and p < 0.00001), among others. A total of 75% of the meta-analyses of studies comparing duloxetine at different doses showed a tendency in favor of the 120 mg/d dose. There were significant differences in favor of duloxetine when compared to routine care on the Euro Quality of Life (SMD = -0.04, CI = -0.04 to -0.03, and p < 0.00001) and SF-36 Survey (SMD = -5.86, CI = -6.28 to -5.44, and p < 0.00001) scales. There were no significant differences on the visual analog scale (VAS) when comparing duloxetine and gabapentin. Conclusions: Duloxetine appears to be effective in the management of DPN in different pain, symptom improvement, and quality of life scales.

Evaluation of Effectiveness and Safety of Firstline Drugs Used in the Treatment of Peripheral Neuropathy Among Elderly Population-A Randomised, Open-label, Active Comparator Study

Background

Peripheral neuropathy is four times more common in geriatric age group patients compared to younger ones. Most of the trials have targeted adult population, and there is scarcity of data in the geriatric age group.

Purpose

A real-world study was planned on geriatric patients suffering from peripheral neuropathy to analyse the effectiveness and safety of first-line drugs used in the management of peripheral neuropathy.

Methods

It was a randomised, open-label, active comparator clinical trial in which first-line drugs for peripheral neuropathy were compared [amitriptyline (10 mg), duloxetine (30 mg), gabapentin (300 mg), pregabalin (75 mg)] for their effectiveness and safety. The trial duration was eight weeks. The modified Toronto Clinical Neuropathy Score (mTCNS), Verbal Rating Scale (VRS) and Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) were used for effectiveness. Safety was assessed by monitoring adverse events. Multiple groups were compared with Kruskal-Wallis test, and post hoc analysis was performed with Dunn's test. A p value <.05 was considered significant.

Results

A total of 80 patients were recruited (20 patients in each arm) with a mean age of 65.4 years, and 56.3% were male. Pregabalin was superior to amitriptyline (p = .04) and duloxetine (p = .02) in reducing mTCNS. Similarly, pregabalin was superior to amitriptyline (p = .041 and duloxetine (p = .009) in reducing GDS score. All drugs were comparable in reducing VRS (p = .17). A total of 14 adverse events were observed, out of which constipation, sedation and dizziness were common. Maximum adverse events were observed in the duloxetine arm (6/14).

Conclusion

Pregabalin was superior to amitriptyline and duloxetine, whereas it was comparable to gabapentin in effectiveness. Constipation was the most common adverse event, but the central nervous system was the most involved in adverse events.

Effectiveness of oral clonidine and gabapentin on peripheral neuropathy in diabetic patients in southwestern Iran: a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Peripheral neuropathy is not only the most prevalent consequence of diabetes but also the main reason for foot ulceration, disability, and amputation. Therefore, the current study aims to determine the effectiveness of oral clonidine and gabapentin on peripheral neuropathy in diabetic patients.

METHODS

This 12-week, randomized, and parallel-group trial was conducted to compare the efficacy of oral clonidine and gabapentin with gabapentin alone in diabetic patients in southwest Iran during the first half of 2021. Thirty patients with type 2 diabetes with peripheral neuropathy as assessed by a visual analog scale (VAS) and divided into two groups of 15 patients, treated for up to three months. The data were analyzed using SPSS-21 software. In order to report the results, descriptive indices, independent t-test, one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and analysis of variance with repeated measures were used.

RESULTS

The mean and standard deviation of the age of the participants in the clonidine + gabapentin group was equal to 50.20 ± 7.44, and in the gabapentin group was equal to 50.47 ± 7.57 (t = 0.10, P-value = 0.923). This research showed a significant difference between the clonidine + gabapentin group and with gabapentin group in terms of neuropathic pain and the severity of neuropathic pain (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

According to this research results, clonidine + gabapentin can reduce neuropathic pain and the severity of neuropathic pain in diabetic patients. Therefore, it is recommended that healthcare professionals with diabetes expertise prescribe these medications to reduce neuropathic pain and its severity.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered in the Iranian Clinical Trials System with the ID (IRCT20211106052983N1) on 14/01/2022.

CDC Clinical Practice Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Pain - United States, 2022

This guideline provides recommendations for clinicians providing pain care, including those prescribing opioids, for outpatients aged ≥18 years. It updates the CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain - United States, 2016 (MMWR Recomm Rep 2016;65[No. RR-1]:1-49) and includes recommendations for managing acute (duration of <1 month), subacute (duration of 1-3 months), and chronic (duration of >3 months) pain. The recommendations do not apply to pain related to sickle cell disease or cancer or to patients receiving palliative or end-of-life care. The guideline addresses the following four areas: 1) determining whether or not to initiate opioids for pain, 2) selecting opioids and determining opioid dosages, 3) deciding duration of initial opioid prescription and conducting follow-up, and 4) assessing risk and addressing potential harms of opioid use. CDC developed the guideline using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Recommendations are based on systematic reviews of the scientific evidence and reflect considerations of benefits and harms, patient and clinician values and preferences, and resource allocation. CDC obtained input from the Board of Scientific Counselors of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (a federally chartered advisory committee), the public, and peer reviewers. CDC recommends that persons with pain receive appropriate pain treatment, with careful consideration of the benefits and risks of all treatment options in the context of the patient's circumstances. Recommendations should not be applied as inflexible standards of care across patient populations. This clinical practice guideline is intended to improve communication between clinicians and patients about the benefits and risks of pain treatments, including opioid therapy; improve the effectiveness and safety of pain treatment; mitigate pain; improve function and quality of life for patients with pain; and reduce risks associated with opioid pain therapy, including opioid use disorder, overdose, and death.

Prevention and Management Strategies for Diabetic Neuropathy

Diabetic neuropathy (DN) is a common complication of diabetes that is becoming an increasing concern as the prevalence of diabetes rapidly rises. There are several types of DN, but the most prevalent and studied type is distal symmetrical polyneuropathy, which is the focus of this review and is simply referred to as DN. It can lead to a wide range of sensorimotor and psychosocial symptoms and is a major risk factor for diabetic foot ulceration and Charcot neuropathic osteoarthropathy, which are associated with high rates of lower limb amputation and mortality. The prevention and management of DN are thus critical, and clinical guidelines recommend several strategies for these based on the best available evidence. This article aims to provide a narrative review of DN prevention and management strategies by discussing these guidelines and the evidence that supports them. First, the epidemiology and diverse clinical manifestations of DN are summarized. Then, prevention strategies such as glycemic control, lifestyle modifications and footcare are discussed, as well as the importance of early diagnosis. Finally, neuropathic pain management strategies and promising novel therapies under investigation such as neuromodulation devices and nutraceuticals are reviewed.

Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Duloxetine and Gabapentin in Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathic Pain: A Meta-Analysis

Background

Diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP) is a common chronic pain condition affecting diabetic patients and has growing importance because of the increasing prevalence of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Pain is the most troublesome symptom of DPNP, increasingly recognized as an important and independent feature of DPNP. This meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy and safety of duloxetine and gabapentin in the treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP) and therefore to provide evidence-based medicine for clinical treatment.

Methods

Relevant randomized controlled trials on duloxetine versus gabapentin for DPNP were searched from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, WanFang, VIP, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database from database inception to October 2021. The data were analyzed by RevMan 5.3 software.

Results

Seven studies were included. The results showed that, at the end of the study, duloxetine was significantly superior to gabapentin in terms of the incidence of adverse reactions (RR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.45–0.79, P < 0.01), sleep interference score (SMD = −0.35, 95% CI: −0.63 to −0.08, P < 0.05), but no significant differences in VAS score (SMD = −0.14, 95% CI: −0.31–0.03, P > 0.05), overall response rate (RR = 1.05, 95% CI: 0.92–1.20, P > 0.05), and clinical global impression of change (SMD = 0.07, 95% CI: −0.20–0.35, P > 0.05).

Conclusion

Compared with gabapentin, duloxetine has no obvious advantage in the treatment of diabetic peripheral neuralgia, but it has less side effects and significantly higher safety.

Comparison of efficacy and safety of gabapentin and duloxetine in painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

In patients with diabetes mellitus, painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (PDPN) is a frequent complication and can cause poor quality of life. We compared the efficacy and safety of duloxetine with those of gabapentin in patients with PDPN through a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched for eligible studies published from database inception to January 2021. Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), sleep interference score, Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGIC), Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), Diabetic Neuropathy Symptom (DNS) score, Diabetic Neuropathic Examination (DNE) score, Neuropathic Disability Score (NDS) and side effects were used to compare duloxetine and gabapentin in patients with PDPN.

RESULTS

Three eligible randomised controlled trials involving 290 patients were included. No significant differences were observed between patients receiving duloxetine and gabapentin with respect to VAS (mean change difference = -1.23, 95% CI, -6.09 to 3.62; P = .62), sleep interference score (mean change difference = 0.42, 95% CI, -0.15 to 1.00; P = .15), CGIC (mean difference = 0.04, 95% CI, -0.11 to 0.20; P = .60), PGIC (mean difference= 0.24, 95% CI, -0.13 to 0.60; P = .21), DNS (mean change difference = 0.14, 95% CI, -0.35 to 0.63; P = .58), DNE (mean change difference = 0.26, 95% CI, -0.35 to 0.86; P = .41) and NDS (mean change difference = 0.30, 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.63; P = .07).

CONCLUSIONS

No significant differences were observed in the efficacy of duloxetine and gabapentin when treating patients with PDPN.