Efficacy and safety of pregabalin for treating neuropathic pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy: a 14 week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Pregabalin for chronic cough due to lung cancer: randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Developing effective therapies for cough in lung cancer is an unmet need Neuromodulators like pregabalin may act centrally as cough suppressants.

METHODS

Randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study in patients with locally advanced/metastatic lung cancer and at least 2 weeks of moderate or severe cough. Randomization was 1:1 to pregabalin 300 mg orally daily or matching placebo, both administered for 9 weeks. Primary endpoint was the change in cough severity as measured by the difference in VAS scores.

RESULTS

Between Jul 2022 and Dec 2023, we enrolled 166 patients: 83 to each arm. Baseline cough severity was grade 2 in 128 (77.1%) and grade 3 in 38 (22.9%) patients; median cough duration was 12 weeks (IQR, 6-20). Systemic cancer-directed therapy was started in 78 (94.0%) and 72 (86.7%) patients in the pregabalin and placebo arms, respectively; P = 0.187. The mean (SD) VAS score (in mm) decreased from 71.58 (14.99) at baseline, to 45.54 (26.60) on day 7, and 22.27 (24.20) by week 9 in the pregabalin arm; and 71.75 (17.58), 46.35 (25.00), and 23.08 (22.42), respectively in the placebo arm; P = 0.877.

CONCLUSION

Pregabalin does not significantly decrease cough in patients with lung cancer. Systemic cancer-directed therapy is the most effective antitussive.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Name of the registry: Clinical Trials Registry India Registration number: CTRI/2020/11/029275 Website: www.ctri.nic.in.

Non-opioid psychiatric medications for chronic pain: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The escalating number of deaths related to opioid usage has intensified the pursuit of non-opioid alternatives for managing chronic pain. It's often observed that psychiatric comorbidities coexist in patients suffering from chronic pain. There are a variety of psychotropic medications that have demonstrated effectiveness in treating both psychiatric symptoms and pain. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to assess the effectiveness of various psychiatric drugs in managing specific types of chronic pain, including fibromyalgia, neuropathic pain, and chronic low back pain.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of five major databases was conducted through February 2023 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that met our inclusion criteria, focusing on outpatients Over 18 years of age with chronic pain. The study assessed the effectiveness of duloxetine, mirogabalin, pregabalin, gabapentin, and tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), including serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), across various chronic pain conditions such as fibromyalgia, neuropathic pain, and chronic low back pain. The primary outcome measures included pain reduction, improvement in function, and quality of life. Of the 29 RCTs in the systematic review, 20 studies qualified for the meta-analysis. The analysis was stratified by pain type and treatment duration (short-term ≤14 weeks vs. long-term >14 weeks), using Hedge's g standardized mean differences and a random-effects model, along with sensitivity and subgroup analyses.

RESULTS

The overall short-term intervention effect across all studies was significant (SMD -1.45, 95% CI -2.15 to -0.75, p < 0.001), with considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 99%). For fibromyalgia, both duloxetine and mirogabalin demonstrated substantial efficacy with SMDs of -2.42 (95% CI -3.67 to -1.18, p < 0.0001) and -2.10 (95% CI -3.28 to -0.92, p = 0.0005), respectively. Conversely, treatments for neuropathic pain and chronic low back pain, including those with amitriptyline and desipramine, did not show significant benefits. The effectiveness of gabapentin could not be conclusively determined due to limited representation in the data. Additionally, no consistent long-term benefits were observed for any of the medications.

CONCLUSIONS

While the results of this study underscore the importance of exploring non-opioid alternatives for chronic pain management, particularly in light of the opioid crisis, it is crucial to interpret the findings carefully. Our analysis suggests that certain psychiatric medications, such Duloxetine and mirogabalin demonstrated significant short-term efficacy in fibromyalgia patients. However, their effectiveness in treating neuropathic pain and chronic low back pain was not statistically significant. Additionally, the effectiveness of gabapentin and other medications, such as pregabalin for neuropathic pain, could not be conclusively determined due to limited data and high study heterogeneity. No consistent long-term benefits were observed for any of the drugs studied, raising questions about their sustained efficacy in chronic pain management. These findings highlight the need for further research to understand better the role of psychiatric medications in managing specific chronic pain conditions without prematurely concluding that they are ineffective or unsuitable for these purposes.

Comparative efficacy and safety of gabapentin, pregabalin, oxcarbazepine, and duloxetine in diabetic peripheral neuropathy: A network meta-analysis

Purpose

To conduct a network meta-analysis comparing the safety and efficacy of gabapentin (GBP), pregabalin (PGB), oxcarbazepine (OXC), and duloxetine (DLX) in treating diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN).

Materials and Methods

The study's eligibility criteria includee randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a focus on DPN patients receiving GBP, PGB, DLX, or OXC versus placebo. Noncompliant trials with incomplete information and observational studies were excluded.

Results

Twelve (RCTs) of PGB, 2 of GBP, 3 of DLX, and 1 of OXC met the inclusion criteria. When drugs were compared for efficacy (direct comparison), GBP (Odd's ratio [OR] = 3.208, P < 0.001) was most effective followed by OXC (OR = 2.4, P = 0.0248), DLX (OR = 2.346, P < 0.001), and PGB (OR = 2.161, P < 0.001). When drugs were compared for withdrawal due to adverse drug reaction (ADR) (direct comparison), GBP (OR = 1.3818, P = 0.766) was safest followed by PGB (OR = 2.16, P < 0.001), DLX (OR = 2.469, P < 0.001), and OXC (OR = 4.4967, P = 0.001). Indirect comparison was done for efficacy, DLX was statistically significant than PGB and OXC (DLX vs. PGB, P = 0.03; DLX vs. OXC, P = 0.02). When indirect comparison was done for patient withdrawal due to ADR, OXC was worst (GBP vs. OXC, P = 0.0001; PGB vs. OXC, P = 0.007; DLX vs. OXC, P = 0.015). When drugs were compared for individual ADRs (direct comparison), dizziness was most commonly seen with OXC (OR = 9.6535, P = 1.8425), headache with OXC (OR = 3.8686, P = 0.006), somnolence with PGB (OR = 5.189, P < 0.001), and nausea with DLX (OR = 3.264, P < 0.001). GBP was most effective and safest drug followed by OXC > DLX > PGB for efficacy and PGB > DLX > OXC for safety.

Conclusion

In evaluating medications for DPN against placebo, GBP and OXC demonstrated the highest effectiveness while maintaining a favorable safety profile.

A Phase 3, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled 14-Week Study of Mirogabalin in Chinese Patients with Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathic Pain

INTRODUCTION

There is no approved effective drug for diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP) in China. Gabapentinoids including mirogabalin have shown promise, although data in Chinese patients are scarce.

METHODS

This phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial investigated the efficacy and safety of mirogabalin for treating DPNP in China. Mirogabalin was administered at 5 mg twice daily for the first week and uptitrated to 15 mg twice daily for a total duration of 14 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline in weekly average daily pain score (ADPS) at week 14; secondary endpoints included the ADPS responder rate, Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire visual analogue scale score, patient global impression of change (PGIC), average daily sleep interference score (ADSIS), EuroQol 5-dimensions 5-levels (EQ-5D-5L), and incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).

RESULTS

Of 393 patients (mirogabalin, n = 196; placebo n = 197), the mean age was 58.2 years (mirogabalin, 58.7 years; placebo, 57.7 years) and 54.2% were male (mirogabalin, 56.1%; placebo, 52.3%). Mirogabalin elicited a greater change from baseline in the weekly ADPS vs. placebo at week 14: least-squares mean difference (95% confidence interval) vs. placebo - 0.39 (- 0.74, - 0.04), p = 0.0301. PGIC, ADSIS, and EQ-5D-5L data reflected significantly better improvements for patients receiving mirogabalin vs. placebo. The incidence of TEAEs was 75.0% and 75.1% in the mirogabalin and placebo groups, respectively. Most TEAEs were mild or moderate, and the incidence of TEAEs leading to treatment discontinuation was 2.6% in the mirogabalin group and 1.5% in the placebo group.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the effect size of mirogabalin was reduced due to the placebo effect, mirogabalin is a safe and effective treatment option for Chinese patients with DPNP.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT04094662.

Comparative Study on the Efficacy of Pregabalin Versus Limaprost in Patients With Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with Lumbar Spinal Stenosis (LSS) typically complain of back pain and leg pain. These symptoms reduce the quality of life (QoL) and also cause sleep disturbances. This study compares pregabalin and limaprost's efficacy in LSS for pain, disability, QoL, and sleep, aiming to offer insights for medication selection.

METHODS

This study was designed as a prospective, randomized, single-center, single-blinded, clinical superiority trial targeting patients with LSS. For 6 weeks, 111 patients per group were administered medication following a standard regimen, after which patient-reported outcomes were measured. The primary outcome was the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, and the secondary outcomes included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), and sleep quality.

RESULTS

After 6 weeks of medication, there were significant improvements over time in the primary outcome, VAS for back pain and leg pain, in both groups, but no significant difference between the 2 groups. Similarly, for the secondary outcomes, ODI and EQ-5D, both groups showed significant improvements, yet there was no significant difference between them. In the subgroup analysis targeting poor sleepers (Pittsburgh sleep quality index, PSQI >5), both groups also exhibited significant improvements in sleep quality, but again, there was no significant difference between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Efficacy of pregabalin, limaprost in back and leg pain, ODI, EQ-5D, and sleep quality, but there was no significant difference between the 2 groups. Thus, it is advisable to prescribe based on individual drug responses and potential complications.

Placebo and nocebo responses in painful diabetic neuropathy: systematic review and meta-analysis

ABSTRACT

This preregistered (CRD42021223379) systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to characterize the placebo and nocebo responses in placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN), updating the previous literature by a decade. Four databases were searched for PDN trials published in the past 20 years, testing oral medications, adopting a parallel-group design. Magnitude of placebo or nocebo responses, Cochrane risk of bias, heterogeneity, and moderators were evaluated. Searches identified 21 studies (2425 placebo-treated patients). The overall mean pooled placebo response was -1.54 change in the pain intensity from baseline [95% confidence interval (CI): -1.52, -1.56, I 2 = 72], with a moderate effect size (Cohen d = 0.72). The pooled placebo 50% response rate was 25% [95% CI: 22, 29, I 2 = 50%]. The overall percentage of patients with adverse events (AEs) in the placebo arms was 53.3% [95% CI: 50.9, 55.7], with 5.1% [95% CI: 4.2, 6] of patients dropping out due to AEs. The year of study initiation was the only significant moderator of placebo response (regression coefficient = -0.06, [95% CI: -0.10, -0.02, P = 0.007]). More recent RCTs tended to be longer, bigger, and to include older patients (N = 21, rs = 0.455, P = 0.038, rs = 0.600, P = 0.004, rs = 0.472, P = 0.031, respectively). Our findings confirm the magnitude of placebo and nocebo responses, identify the year of study initiation as the only significant moderator of placebo response, draw attention to contextual factors such as confidence in PDN treatments, patients' previous negative experiences, intervention duration, and information provided to patients before enrollment.

Evaluating the Effect of Pregabalin in the Treatment of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: A Prospective, Randomized, Triple-Blinded, Placebo-controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of pregabalin for the control of symptoms in mild to moderate idiopathic Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS).

METHODS

In this randomized, placebo-controlled trial, 146 mild to moderate idiopathic CTS patients were randomized into pregabalin (n=74) and placebo groups (n=72). Per protocol, analysis was conducted with 131 patients; pregabalin (n=65) and placebo (n=66). The drug titration dose was 50 mg once daily for the first week, twice daily for the second week and thrice daily for the next 6 weeks. The primary outcome included a change in the Symptom Severity Scale and Functional Status Scale (FSS) of the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire after the eighth week. The secondary outcome was the change in clinical and electrophysiological grading after 8 weeks of therapy.

RESULTS

There was a statistically significant improvement in the mean Symptom Severity Scale (14.92±3.72 vs. 16.55±4.45; P =0.025) and FSS (10.77±2.64 vs. 12.0±2.55; P =0.007) in the pregabalin group after 8 weeks. Mean clinical and electrophysiological grading changed significantly from 2.3±0.7 to 2.1±0.8 ( P =0.001) and 1.9±0.7 to 1.8±0.8 ( P =0.020), respectively in the pregabalin group but not in the placebo group.

DISCUSSION

The results of this study demonstrates that pregabalin is effective in ameliorating symptoms and improving functional outcomes in mild to moderate idiopathic CTS.

The safety and efficacy of gabapentinoids in the management of neuropathic pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

There are increasing concerns regarding the abusive potential of gabapentinoids putting at risk patients with neuropathic pain requiring long-term pain management. The evidence to support this is rather inconcusive.

AIM

This systematic review aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of gabapentinoids in the management of neuropathic pain with a focus on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and categorising the side effects according to the body systems they were affecting.

METHOD

Searches were conducted in MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Web of Science, PsycoINFO, and CINAHL (EBSCO), and included RCTs to identify and critically appraise studies investigating safety and therapeutic effects of gabapentionoids in adults with neuropathic pain. Data extraction was conducted using an established Cochrane form and the risk-of-bias tool was used in the assessment of quality.

RESULTS

50 studies (12,398 participants) were included. The majority of adverse events pertained to the nervous system (7 effects) or psychiatric (3 effects) disorders. There were more adverse effects reported with pregabalin (36 effects) than with gabapentin (22 effects). Six pregabalin studies reported euphoria as a side effect, while no studies reported euphoria with gabapentin. This was the only side effect that may correlate with addictive potential. Gabapentioids were reported to significantly reduce pain compared to placebo.

CONCLUSION

Despite RCTs documenting the adverse events of gabapentionoids on the nervous system, there was no evidence of gabapentinoid use leading to addiction, suggesting an urgent need to design studies investigating their abusive potential.

An Insight into Potential Pharmacotherapeutic Agents for Painful Diabetic Neuropathy

Diabetes is the 4th most common disease affecting the world's population. It is accompanied by many complications that deteriorate the quality of life. Painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) is one of the debilitating consequences of diabetes that effects one-third of diabetic patients. Unfortunately, there is no internationally recommended drug that directly hinders the pathological mechanisms that result in painful diabetic neuropathy. Clinical studies have shown that anticonvulsant and antidepressant therapies have proven fruitful in management of pain associated with PDN. Currently, the FDA approved medications for painful diabetic neuropathies include duloxetine, pregabalin, tapentadol extended release, and capsaicin (for foot PDN only). The FDA has also approved the use of spinal cord stimulation system for the treatment of diabetic neuropathy pain. The drugs recommended by other regulatory bodies include gabapentin, amitriptyline, dextromethorphan, tramadol, venlafaxine, sodium valproate, and 5 % lidocaine patch. These drugs are only partially effective and have adverse effects associated with their use. Treating painful symptoms in diabetic patient can be frustrating not only for the patients but also for health care workers, so additional clinical trials for novel and conventional treatments are required to devise more effective treatment for PDN with minimal side effects. This review gives an insight on the pathways involved in the pathogenesis of PDN and the potential pharmacotherapeutic agents. This will be followed by an overview on the FDA-approved drugs for PDN and commercially available topical analgesic and their effects on painful diabetic neuropathies.

The Treatment of Painful Diabetic Neuropathy

Painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (painful-DPN) is a highly prevalent and disabling condition, affecting up to one-third of patients with diabetes. This condition can have a profound impact resulting in a poor quality of life, disruption of employment, impaired sleep, and poor mental health with an excess of depression and anxiety. The management of painful-DPN poses a great challenge. Unfortunately, currently there are no Food and Drug Administration (USA) approved disease-modifying treatments for diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) as trials of putative pathogenetic treatments have failed at phase 3 clinical trial stage. Therefore, the focus of managing painful- DPN other than improving glycaemic control and cardiovascular risk factor modification is treating symptoms. The recommended treatments based on expert international consensus for painful- DPN have remained essentially unchanged for the last decade. Both the serotonin re-uptake inhibitor (SNRI) duloxetine and α2δ ligand pregabalin have the most robust evidence for treating painful-DPN. The weak opioids (e.g. tapentadol and tramadol, both of which have an SNRI effect), tricyclic antidepressants such as amitriptyline and α2δ ligand gabapentin are also widely recommended and prescribed agents. Opioids (except tramadol and tapentadol), should be prescribed with caution in view of the lack of definitive data surrounding efficacy, concerns surrounding addiction and adverse events. Recently, emerging therapies have gained local licenses, including the α2δ ligand mirogabalin (Japan) and the high dose 8% capsaicin patch (FDA and Europe). The management of refractory painful-DPN is difficult; specialist pain services may offer off-label therapies (e.g. botulinum toxin, intravenous lidocaine and spinal cord stimulation), although there is limited clinical trial evidence supporting their use. Additionally, despite combination therapy being commonly used clinically, there is little evidence supporting this practise. There is a need for further clinical trials to assess novel therapeutic agents, optimal combination therapy and existing agents to determine which are the most effective for the treatment of painful-DPN. This article reviews the evidence for the treatment of painful-DPN, including emerging treatment strategies such as novel compounds and stratification of patients according to individual characteristics (e.g. pain phenotype, neuroimaging and genotype) to improve treatment responses.

Comparative Benefit-Risk Assessment for Lidocaine 700 mg Medicated Plaster and Pregabalin in Peripheral Neuropathic Pain Following a Structured Framework Approach

Introduction

Peripheral neuropathic pain (PNP) is difficult to treat. Several oral drugs are recommended as first-line treatments. Nevertheless, many patients cannot obtain sufficient pain relief or do not tolerate systemically active treatments. Topical treatments, with a lower risk of systemic side effects such as lidocaine 700 mg medicated plaster, are also recommended in treatment guidelines. This analysis compares the benefit–risk balance of topical 700 mg lidocaine medicated plaster with the benefit–risk balance of oral pregabalin administration for the treatment of PNP following current recommendations on benefit–risk assessment (BRA) methodology.

Methods

The Benefit–Risk Action Team (BRAT) framework was used as structured approach. Selection of key benefits and risks was supported by a patient survey. Published randomized controlled clinical trials were the main source to identify data related to key benefits and risks. The outcome of randomized clinical trials was compared with real-world evidence (RWE) data for consistency.

Results

Identified key benefits were pain reduction and improvement in quality of life. Key risks identified were application site reactions, dizziness, confusion, weight gain, peripheral edema, and blurred vision. Overall, there was similarity in key benefits between the comparators; however, a clear advantage regarding key risks in favor of lidocaine 700 mg medicated plaster was observed. This observation was consistent across data from a direct comparison trial, randomized placebo-controlled trials, as well as data from RWE studies. The low number of randomized controlled trials for lidocaine 700 mg medicated plaster was the main limitation.

Conclusion

Guided by the opinion of patients regarding key benefits and risks deemed important for treatments of peripheral neuropathic pain, our analysis showed that lidocaine 700 mg medicated plaster has a more favorable benefit–risk balance compared to pregabalin (300 and 600 mg daily).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40122-021-00340-2.

Different Drugs for the Treatment of Painful Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy: A Meta-Analysis

Objective: To systematically evaluate the effects of different drugs for the treatment of painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy.

Methods: All literature from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials published over the past 12 years (from January 1, 2008 to June 1, 2020) was searched, and two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility, continuous data extraction, independent assessment of bias risk, and graded strength of evidence. The pain score was used as the main result, and 30 and 50% pain reduction and adverse events were used as secondary results.

Results: A total of 37 studies were included. Pregabalin, duloxetine, tapentadol, lacosamide, mirogabalin, and capsaicin were all more effective than placebo in alleviating the pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy, while ABT-894 and gabapentin showed no significant effect. In addition, the efficacy of buprenorphine, tanezumab, fulranumab and others could not be concluded due to insufficient studies.

Conclusion: Pregabalin and duloxetine showed good therapeutic effects on painful DPN, but adverse events were also significant. The analgesic effects of ABT-894 and gabapentin need to be further studied with longer and larger RCTs. As an opioid drug, tapentadol has a good analgesic effect, but due to its addiction, it needs to be very cautious in clinical use. Although lacosamide, mirogabalin, and capsaicin are more effective than placebo, the therapeutic effect is weaker than pregabalin. For the results of our meta-analysis, long-term studies are still needed to verify their efficacy and safety in the future.

Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO, identifier: CRD42020197397.

Pharmacokinetics of a New, Once-Daily, Sustained-Release Pregabalin Tablet in Healthy Male Volunteers

PURPOSE

A new sustained-release (SR) pregabalin formulation (YHD1119) designed for once-daily dosing has recently been developed to improve patient adherence. This study aimed to compare the pharmacokinetics of pregabalin SR and immediate-release (IR) formulations after multiple oral doses and to assess the effect of food on the pharmacokinetic profile of the pregabalin SR formulation after a single dose in healthy individuals.

METHODS

Two clinical trials were conducted: a randomized, open-label, multiple-dose, 2-treatment, 2-period crossover study to evaluate the steady-state pharmacokinetic properties of SR treatment (pregabalin SR 300 mg once daily for 3 days) and IR treatment (pregabalin IR 150 mg twice daily for 3 days) under fed conditions and a randomized, open-label, single-dose, 2-treatment, 2-period, crossover study to evaluate the effect of food intake on the pharmacokinetic properties of the pregabalin SR formulation. Plasma concentrations of pregabalin were measured using LC-MS/MS. The AUC and C_max for pregabalin were calculated using noncompartmental method and compared between treatments in each study.

FINDINGS

Thirty-one individuals in the bioequivalence study and 23 in the food effect study completed the pharmacokinetic sampling. The geometric mean ratios of C_max,ss and AUC_0-τ between the SR and IR formulations were 1.1642 (90% CI, 1.1043-1.2272) and 0.9704 (90% CI, 0.9372-1.0047), respectively. The geometric mean ratios of C_max and AUC_0-last between the SR formulation in the fed state and in the fasted state were 1.6514 (90% CI, 1.3820-1.9732) and 1.7899 (90%CI, 1.4499-2.2097), respectively.

IMPLICATIONS

The bioavailability of the pregabalin SR 300 mg formulation is increased if taken with a high-fat meal. Once-daily pregabalin SR 300 mg is bioequivalent to twice-daily pregabalin IR 150 mg under fed conditions at steady state. The pregabalin SR formulation is expected to improve patient adherence. ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT02783183 (bioequivalence study) and NCT03191136 (food effect study).

Effectiveness of Pregabalin Treatment for Neuropathic Pain in Patients with Spine Diseases: A Pooled Analysis of Two Multicenter Observational Studies in Japan

Purpose

Neuropathic pain (NeP) is common among patients with chronic pain associated with spine diseases. Practical effectiveness of pregabalin, one of the first-line treatments for NeP, has not been evaluated in an entire population of patients with spine diseases, including various pathophysiological conditions. This pooled analysis aimed to evaluate the therapeutic value of pregabalin for chronic pain with NeP component in patients with spine diseases in routine primary care settings.

Patients and Methods

We pooled data from two 8-week prospective observational cohort studies for patients with chronic low back pain with accompanying lower limb pain (NeP component), and patients with chronic cervical pain and accompanying upper limb radiating pain (NeP component) in routine primary care settings in Japan. For both studies, patients were treated for 8 weeks with pregabalin (alone/with other analgesics) or usual care with conventional analgesics (eg, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs). Changes in pain numerical rating scale (NRS), Pain-Related Sleep Interference Scale (PRSIS), and EuroQol 5-dimension 5-level (EQ-5D-5L) scores from baseline to week 8 were summarized and compared between the pregabalin and usual care groups, and also for subgroups of primary diagnosis. Safety was evaluated by adverse events (AEs) in the pregabalin group.

Results

The pooled dataset comprised 700 patients (pregabalin group: 302; usual care group: 398). All patient-reported outcomes (PRO) scores significantly improved from baseline to week 8 in the pregabalin than in the usual care group (NRS: P<0.0001; PRSIS: P<0.0001, and EQ-5D-5L: P=0.0006). Overall, all three PRO measures showed greater improvement in the pregabalin than in the usual care group, irrespective of the primary diagnosis. AEs were reported in 36.1% of the pregabalin group.

Conclusion

This analysis suggested multi-faceted effectiveness of treatment with pregabalin from the patient’s perspectives under a “real-world” practice in all patients with chronic NeP from various spine diseases.

Cost-Effectiveness of Mirogabalin for the Treatment of Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathic Pain in Taiwan

OBJECTIVES

To assess the cost-effectiveness of 30 mg of mirogabalin versus no treatment or 300 mg of pregabalin in patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP) from a third-party perspective in Taiwan.

METHODS

A Markov model, developed with cycles of 2-week and a 1-year timeframes, consisted of 3 health states: mild, moderate, and severe pain. Average daily pain score (ADPS) was assessed at the end of each 2-week cycle. All patients entered the model in moderate (4 ≤ ADPS < 7) or severe (7 ≤ ADPS ≤ 10) pain health states. At the end of each cycle, patients remained in their assigned health state or transitioned to a different health state according to their pain score change. Efficacy data were informed by the pivotal phase III clinical trial (J303, NCT02318706) or by a network meta-analysis. Utility values were obtained from published literature, and resource use and cost data from Taiwanese clinical experts and Taiwan National Health Insurance Administration. One-way sensitivity, scenario, and probabilistic analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

A head-to-head analysis demonstrated that 30 mg of mirogabalin is a cost-effective treatment option versus placebo for DPNP. The base-case deterministic analysis estimated quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gains of 0.02 at an incremental cost of 9697 New Taiwan dollars (NT$) (equal to $323) versus placebo (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]: 489 310 NT$/QALY [$15 860/QALY]). Mirogabalin was also cost-effective compared with 300 mg of pregabalin (ICER: 18 476 NT$/QALY [$600/QALY]). Sensitivity and scenario analyses results confirmed the robustness.

CONCLUSION

Economic analysis suggests that mirogabalin 30 mg, a potent and selective α2δ ligand, is a cost-effective treatment option for DPNP in Taiwan, with an ICER below the willingness-to-pay threshold.

Evaluating the impact of gabapentinoids on sleep health in patients with chronic neuropathic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Chronic neuropathic pain (NP) is debilitating and impacts sleep health and quality of life. Treatment with gabapentinoids (GBs) has been shown to reduce pain, but its effects on sleep health have not been systematically evaluated. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the relationship between GB therapy dose and duration on sleep quality, daytime somnolence, and intensity of pain in patients with NP. Subgroup comparisons were planned for high- vs low-dose GBs, where 300 mg per day or more of pregabalin was used to classify high-dose therapy. Trial data were segregated by duration less than 6 weeks and 6 weeks or greater. Twenty randomized controlled trials were included. Primary outcome measures included pain-related sleep interference and incidence of daytime somnolence. Secondary outcomes included daily pain scores (numerical rating scale 0-10) and patient global impression of change. Significant improvement in sleep quality was observed after 6 weeks of GB treatment when compared with placebo (standardized mean difference 0.39, 95% confidence interval 0.32-0.46 P < 0.001). Increased daytime somnolence was observed among all GB-treated groups when compared with placebo. Treated patients were also more likely to report improvement of patient global impression of change scores. Pain scores decreased significantly in patients both after 6 weeks of treatment (P < 0.001) and in trials less than 6 weeks (P = 0.017) when compared with placebo. Our data demonstrate that GBs have a positive impact on sleep health, quality of life, and pain in patients with NP syndromes. However, these benefits come at the expense of daytime somnolence.

A Cross-sectional Survey of Patients with Suspected Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathic Pain in Japan

Objective The burden of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP) is poorly understood. The present study reported on the current status of DPNP in Japan, to improve our understanding of this condition among healthcare providers and inform future clinical research on its prevalence, diagnosis, and management. Methods A cross-sectional, observational study (UMIN000037023) was conducted via a web-based survey. The primary endpoints were the frequency of patients with bilateral foot symptoms, consulting a doctor, understanding DPNP, and reporting problems in daily life, as well as the treatment awareness of patients. Patients Adults ≥20 years old who were registered in the Rakuten Insight Disease Panel and receiving anti-diabetic therapy in Japan were included. Results Bilateral foot pain symptoms were reported by 1,768/7,754 (22.8%) respondents, most commonly intense numbness (13.0%). Of those with symptoms, 55.3% consulted a doctor; the most common reason for not seeking consultation was feeling that symptoms were insufficiently severe to bother their doctor (89.4%). Nearly 60% reported understanding the causes of their symptoms, with diabetes-associated neurologic deficits (58.8%) most commonly identified. About one-quarter reported daily life problems, including an inability to walk for long periods (58.3%) and feeling anxious (58.1%). Treatment awareness was reported by 18.2%; oral medications were commonly recognized (64.6%). Conclusion In Japan, 22.8% of patients with diabetes have bilateral foot pain symptoms; some experience problems in their daily life without understanding the causes of their symptoms. This supports the importance of actions to increase awareness and minimize DPNP-associated impairment of daily life in patients with diabetes.

Pharmacological Management of Painful Peripheral Neuropathies: A Systematic Review

Introduction

Peripheral neuropathic pain (PNP) arises either acutely or in the chronic phase of a lesion or disease of the peripheral nervous system and is associated with a notable disease burden. The management of PNP is often challenging. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate current evidence, derived from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that have assessed pharmacological interventions for the treatment of PNP due to polyneuropathy (PN).

Methods

A systematic search of the PubMed database led to the identification of 538 papers, of which 457 were excluded due to not meeting the eligibility criteria, and two articles were identified through screening of the reference lists of the 81 eligible studies. Ultimately, 83 papers were included in this systematic review.

Results

The best available evidence for the management of painful diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN) is for amitriptyline, duloxetine, gabapentin, pregabalin and venlafaxine as monotherapies and oxycodone as add-on therapy (level II of evidence). Tramadol appears to be effective when used as a monotherapy and add-on therapy in patients with PN of various etiologies (level II of evidence). Weaker evidence (level III) is available on the effectiveness of several other agents discussed in this review for the management of PNP due to PN.

Discussion

Response to treatment may be affected by the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms that are involved in the pathogenesis of the PN and, therefore, it is very important to thoroughly investigate patients presenting with PNP to determine the causes of this neuropathy. Future RCTs should be conducted to shed more light on the use of pharmacological approaches in patients with other forms of PNP and to design specific treatment algorithms.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40122-020-00210-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy: Diagnosis and Treatment

BACKGROUND

Diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) is traditionally divided into large and small fibre neuropathy (SFN). Damage to the large fibres can be detected using nerve conduction studies (NCS) and often results in a significant reduction in sensitivity and loss of protective sensation, while damage to the small fibres is hard to reliably detect and can be either asymptomatic, associated with insensitivity to noxious stimuli, or often manifests itself as intractable neuropathic pain.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the recent advances in both detection, grading, and treatment of DPN as well as the accompanying neuropathic pain.

METHODS

A review of relevant, peer-reviewed, English literature from MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library between January 1st 1967 and January 1st 2020 was used.

RESULTS

We identified more than three hundred studies on methods for detecting and grading DPN, and more than eighty randomised-controlled trials for treating painful diabetic neuropathy.

CONCLUSION

NCS remains the method of choice for detecting LFN in people with diabetes, while a gold standard for the detection of SFN is yet to be internationally accepted. In the recent years, several methods with huge potential for detecting and grading this condition have become available including skin biopsies and corneal confocal microscopy, which in the future could represent reliable endpoints for clinical studies. While several newer methods for detecting SFN have been developed, no new drugs have been accepted for treating neuropathic pain in people with diabetes. Tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors and anticonvulsants remain first line treatment, while newer agents targeting the proposed pathophysiology of DPN are being developed.

Results of Mirogabalin Treatment for Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathic Pain in Asian Subjects: A Phase 2, Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Study

INTRODUCTION

Almost one-quarter of Asian patients with diabetes experience diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP), which may be associated with moderate or severe levels of pain, insomnia, mood disorders, and worsened quality of life. Current treatments are generally ineffective and may be poorly tolerated. We evaluated mirogabalin as a treatment for DPNP in Asian subjects.

METHODS

This phase 2, randomized, double-blind, controlled study was conducted in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. Subjects (n = 450) with DPNP were randomized (1:1:1:1:1) to treatment with 5, 10, or 15 mg twice-daily (BID) mirogabalin, 150 mg BID pregabalin, or placebo. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in average daily pain score (ADPS) at week 7; secondary endpoints included responder rates, Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), average daily sleep-interference score (ADSIS), and incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).

RESULTS

A greater improvement was noted for each mirogabalin treatment group for change from baseline in ADPS at week 7 compared with both placebo and with pregabalin, although these improvements were not statistically significant. The percentage of 30, 50, and 75% responders and subjects with PGIC improvements was greater in each mirogabalin group versus placebo. Mirogabalin 15 mg BID significantly improved the SF-MPQ sensory (p = 0.0313) and visual analog scale scores (p = 0.0093), and ADSIS (p = 0.0002), versus placebo. Treatment was generally well tolerated; the most frequently reported TEAEs in the mirogabalin groups were somnolence (14.7%) and dizziness (11.0%), and most AEs were mild or moderate even at the highest dose.

CONCLUSIONS

In Asian subjects with DPNP, mirogabalin (5, 10, and 15 mg BID) was well tolerated. Although no significant differences were observed in the primary endpoint, there was a tendency toward improvement of pain with mirogabalin treatment, and this trend was also observed in the secondary endpoints.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01504412.

Systematic review and network meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of lidocaine 700 mg medicated plaster vs. pregabalin

Objective: Neuropathic pain prevalence is estimated between 7% and 10% of the population. International guidelines recommend a variety of drugs at different therapy lines for pain relief. However, side effect profiles, for example, prompted the UK government recently to classify pregabalin and gabapentin as class C drugs. Lidocaine 700 mg medicated plaster (LMP) might be a safer alternative. A systematic review assessed how LMP and pregabalin compared in terms of efficacy and safety. The review focused on pain reduction, quality of life and adverse events in peripheral neuropathic pain (PNP) i.e. post-herpetic neuralgia, diabetic peripheral neuropathy, post-surgical/trauma, or other PNP conditions.Methods: Electronic databases were searched as well as a number of other sources up to November 2018. Sensitive strategies were used, with no restriction by language or publication status. Two independent reviewers screened records and extracted data with consensus determining final decisions. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration 2011 checklist for RCTs. Full network meta-analysis was conducted to compare LMP to pregabalin 300/600 mg in terms of pain reduction, quality of life, as well as serious adverse events and selected adverse events. Trials with enriched enrolment design were excluded.Results: Searches retrieved 7,104 records. In total 111 references pertaining to 43 RCTs were included for data extraction. Bayesian network meta-analysis of several pain outcomes showed no clear difference in efficacy between treatments However, LMP was clearly advantageous in terms of dizziness and any adverse event vs. pregabalin 600 mg/day and discontinuations vs. pregabalin 300 mg/day or 600 mg/day, as well as being associated with improved quality of life (albeit in this case based on weak evidence).Conclusions: LMP was found to be similar to pregabalin in reducing pain in all populations but had a better adverse events profile.

Integrating Machine Learning With Microsimulation to Classify Hypothetical, Novel Patients for Predicting Pregabalin Treatment Response Based on Observational and Randomized Data in Patients With Painful Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy

Purpose

Variability in patient treatment responses can be a barrier to effective care. Utilization of available patient databases may improve the prediction of treatment responses. We evaluated machine learning methods to predict novel, individual patient responses to pregabalin for painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy, utilizing an agent-based modeling and simulation platform that integrates real-world observational study (OS) data and randomized clinical trial (RCT) data.

Patients and methods

The best supervised machine learning methods were selected (through literature review) and combined in a novel way for aligning patients with relevant subgroups that best enable prediction of pregabalin responses. Data were derived from a German OS of pregabalin (N=2642) and nine international RCTs (N=1320). Coarsened exact matching of OS and RCT patients was used and a hierarchical cluster analysis was implemented. We tested which machine learning methods would best align candidate patients with specific clusters that predict their pain scores over time. Cluster alignments would trigger assignments of cluster-specific time-series regressions with lagged variables as inputs in order to simulate "virtual" patients and generate 1000 trajectory variations for given novel patients.

Results

Instance-based machine learning methods (k-nearest neighbor, supervised fuzzy c-means) were selected for quantitative analyses. Each method alone correctly classified 56.7% and 39.1% of patients, respectively. An "ensemble method" (combining both methods) correctly classified 98.4% and 95.9% of patients in the training and testing datasets, respectively.

Conclusion

An ensemble combination of two instance-based machine learning techniques best accommodated different data types (dichotomous, categorical, continuous) and performed better than either technique alone in assigning novel patients to subgroups for predicting treatment outcomes using microsimulation. Assignment of novel patients to a cluster of similar patients has the potential to improve prediction of patient outcomes for chronic conditions in which initial treatment response can be incorporated using microsimulation.

Clinical trial registries

www.clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00156078, NCT00159679, NCT00143156, NCT00553475.

The relationship between the reporting of euphoria events and early treatment responses to pregabalin: an exploratory post-hoc analysis

Background

Euphoria is a complex, multifactorial problem that is reported as an adverse event in clinical trials of analgesics including pregabalin. The relationship between the reporting of euphoria events and pregabalin early treatment responses was examined in this exploratory post-hoc analysis.

Methods

Data were from patients with neuropathic or non-neuropathic chronic pain enrolled in 40 randomized clinical trials, who received pregabalin (75–600 mg/day) or placebo. Reports of treatment-emergent euphoria events were based on the Medical Dictionary of Regulatory Activities preferred term “euphoric mood”. Prevalence rates of euphoria events overall and by indication were assessed. Post-treatment endpoints included ≥30% improvements in pain and sleep scores up to 3 weeks as well as a ≥1-point improvement in daily pain score up to 11 days after treatment.

Results

13,252 patients were analyzed; 8,501 (64.1%) and 4,751 (35.9%) received pregabalin and placebo, respectively. Overall, 1.7% (n=222) of patients reported euphoria events. Among pregabalin-treated patients, a larger proportion who reported euphoria events achieved an early pain response compared with those who did not report euphoria (30% pain responders in week 1 with euphoria events [43.0%], without euphoria events [24.2%]). Results were similar for weeks 2 and 3. For Days 2–11, a larger proportion of pregabalin-treated patients with (relative to without) euphoria events were 1-point pain responders. Findings were similar in pregabalin-treated patients for sleep endpoints (30% sleep responders in week 1 with euphoria events [50.7%], without euphoria events [36.1%]). Similar results were found for weeks 2 and 3. Patients who received placebo showed similar patterns, although the overall number of them who reported euphoria events was small (n=13).

Conclusion

In patients who received pregabalin for neuropathic or non-neuropathic chronic pain, those who experienced euphoria events may have better early treatment responses than those who did not report euphoria events.

A Phase I, Randomized, Double-Blind, Laser-Evoked Potential Study to Evaluate the Analgesic/Antihyperalgesic Effect of ASP9226, a State-Dependent N-Type Voltage-Gated Calcium Channel Inhibitor, in Healthy Male Subjects

Objective

Evaluate the analgesic/antihyperalgesic effects of ASP9226, a state-dependent N-type voltage-gated calcium channel inhibitor, in healthy male subjects.

Design

Randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo- and active comparator–controlled crossover study.

Setting

HPR Dr. Schaffler GmbH, Munich, Germany.

Subject

Healthy male subjects aged 18–55 years.

Methods

Twenty-four eligible subjects were randomly assigned to one of four treatment sequences and received single doses of ASP9226 (30 mg or 50 mg), pregabalin (150 mg), or placebo during four treatment periods. Laser-evoked potentials (LEP) and postlaser pain visual analog scales (VAS) on capsaicin-treated skin were assessed during main assessment days (the first day of each study period). Primary and secondary end points were the differences in LEP N2-P2 peak-to-peak (PtP) amplitudes and VAS score, respectively, in all subjects.

Results

Overall, treatment with pregabalin resulted in a significantly lower LEP N2-P2 PtP amplitude vs placebo (–3.30 μV, P < 0.0001). There were no clinically relevant differences in N2-P2 PtP amplitudes between placebo and either ASP9226 dose (–0.31 μV and –0.27 μV). Furthermore, subjects reported significantly lower VAS pain scores with pregabalin vs placebo (–9.90%, P < 0.0001) in contrast to ASP9226 30 mg (–2.1%) and ASP9226 50 mg (1.2%) vs placebo. Subgroup analysis of LEP and VAS pain in participants with positive prestudy capsaicin response (n = 13) were in keeping with results in all subjects.

Conclusions

ASP9226 was well tolerated; however, there was no improvement in LEP and VAS pain scores with ASP9226 at either dose vs placebo.

Reproducibility of a battery of human evoked pain models to detect pharmacological effects of analgesic drugs

BACKGROUND

Although reproducibility is considered essential for any method used in scientific research, it is investigated only rarely; thus, strikingly little has been published regarding the reproducibility of evoked pain models involving human subjects. Here, we studied the reproducibility of a battery of evoked pain models for demonstrating the analgesic effects of two analgesic compounds.

METHODS

A total of 81 healthy subjects participated in four studies involving a battery of evoked pain tests in which mechanical, thermal and electrical stimuli were used to measure pain detection and tolerance thresholds. Pharmacodynamic outcome variables were analysed using a mixed model analysis of variance, and a coefficient of variation was calculated by dividing the standard deviation by the least squares means.

RESULTS

A total of 76 subjects completed the studies. After being administered pregabalin, the subjects' pain tolerance thresholds in the cold pressor and pressure stimulation tests were significantly increased compared to the placebo group. Moreover, the heat pain detection threshold in UVB-irradiated skin was significantly increased in subjects who were administered ibuprofen compared to the placebo group. Variation among all evoked pain tests ranged from 2.2% to 30.6%.

CONCLUSIONS

Four studies using a similar design showed reproducibility with respect to the included evoked pain models. The relatively high consistency and reproducibility of two analgesics at doses known to be effective in treating clinically relevant pain supports the validity of using this pain test battery to investigate the analgesic activity and determine the active dosage of putative analgesic compounds in early clinical development.

SIGNIFICANCE

The consistency and reproducibility of measuring the profile of an analgesic at clinically relevant doses illustrates that this pain test battery is a valid tool for demonstrating the analgesic activity of a test compound and for determining the optimal active dose in early clinical drug development.

Recent Developments of Novel Pharmacologic Therapeutics for Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy

Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a common and dose-limiting toxicity, negatively affecting both quality of life and disease outcomes. To date, there is no proven preventative strategy for CIPN. Although multiple randomized trials have evaluated a variety of pharmacologic interventions for the treatment of CIPN, only duloxetine has shown clear efficacy in a phase III study. The National Cancer Institute's Symptom Management and Health-Related Quality of Life Steering Committee has identified CIPN as a priority for translational research in cancer care. Promising advances in preclinical research have identified several novel preventative and therapeutic targets, which have the potential to transform the care of patients with this debilitating neurotoxicity. Here, we provide an overarching view of emerging strategies and therapeutic targets that are currently being evaluated in CIPN.

Effectiveness of pregabalin for treatment of chronic cervical radiculopathy with upper limb radiating pain: an 8-week, multicenter prospective observational study in Japanese primary care settings

Background: Despite high prevalence of chronic neck pain in Japan and the negative impact pain has on patient’s quality of life (QoL), the therapeutic value of pregabalin for chronic neck pain with a neuropathic pain (NeP) component has not been assessed in a typical Japanese health care setting.

Methods: An 8-week, non-interventional, multicenter, observational study of Japanese adults (≥20 years) with chronic refractory cervical pain including a NeP element (for ≥12 weeks) and sleep disturbance on the Pain-Related Sleep-Interference Scale (PRSIS) ≥1 (from 0 “does not interfere with sleep” to 10 “completely interferes”). Patients received either usual care with conventional analgesics or pregabalin (150–600 mg/day) for 8 weeks. “Usual care” with analgesics or other treatment(s) was determined based on physician’s best clinical judgment. Primary endpoint was change from baseline to week 8 in PRSIS. Secondary endpoints included: change from baseline to week 4 in PRSIS, and to week 4 and 8 in pain Numerical Rating Scale (NRS; from 0 “no pain” to 10 “worst possible pain”), and on the Neck Disability Index (NDI). Other assessments of QoL were undertaken. Safety was monitored.

Results: Overall, 369 patients received pregabalin (n=145) or usual care (n=224). The median (range) dose of pregabalin was 49.6 (25.0–251.5) mg/day. Least-squares mean change in PRSIS from baseline to week 8 favored pregabalin (–1.167 vs –0.269; treatment difference –0.898 [95% CI –1.262, –0.535], P<0.001). Similar observations were seen at week 4 in favor of pregabalin versus usual care (P<0.001). Pregabalin significantly improved pain NRS and NDI scores at weeks 4 and 8 (all P<0.001). Improvements in QoL versus usual care were also observed. Pregabalin was generally well tolerated.

Conclusion: In this open-label study, pregabalin improved PRSIS and resulted in clinically meaningful reductions in pain in Japanese patients with NeP associated with chronic cervical pain.

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02868359.

The efficacy of pregabalin for the treatment of neuropathic pain in Japanese subjects with moderate or severe baseline pain

Purpose

Although analyses of pooled clinical trial data have reported how international populations respond to pregabalin by baseline neuropathic pain (NeP) severity, no studies have evaluated this specifically in patients from Japan. Thus, this post hoc pooled analysis evaluated the efficacy of pregabalin in Japanese subjects for treating moderate or severe baseline NeP.

Patients and methods

Data were pooled from three placebo-controlled trials enrolling Japanese subjects with postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN), and spinal cord injury (SCI). The efficacy of pregabalin was evaluated by baseline pain severity (moderate or severe NeP). The trials on PHN and DPN included a 1-week titration of pregabalin from 150 mg/day to 300 or 600 mg/day; the SCI trial included a 4-week dose optimization phase (150 mg/day, titrated up to 600 mg/day). Treatment durations were 13–16 weeks (excluding 1-week taper periods), and pregabalin was administered in two divided doses per day.

Results

Mean baseline pain scores and demographic characteristics were comparable between treatment cohorts. Pregabalin treatment significantly reduced pain scores from baseline to endpoint compared with placebo in subjects with both moderate (P<0.001) and severe (P<0.05) baseline pain. Significant improvements in mean sleep scores from baseline to endpoint were associated with pregabalin compared with placebo in subjects with both moderate and severe baseline pain (both P<0.0001). A greater proportion of subjects in both pain cohorts achieved a ≥30% reduction in pain from baseline with pregabalin vs placebo (P<0.05). Higher proportions of pregabalin-treated vs placebo-treated subjects shifted to a less severe pain category at endpoint. Consistent with the known safety profile of pregabalin, common adverse events included dizziness, somnolence, weight gain, and peripheral edema.

Conclusion

Pregabalin demonstrated efficacy for pain relief and sleep improvement with a consistent safety profile in Japanese subjects with either moderate or severe baseline pain severity.

ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers

NCT0039490130, NCT0055347522, NCT0040774524

Pregabalin in the Management of Painful Diabetic Neuropathy: A Narrative Review

Pregabalin is a first-line treatment in all major international guidelines on the management of painful diabetic neuropathy (pDPN). Treatment with pregabalin leads to a clinically meaningful improvement in pain scores, offers consistent relief of pain and has an acceptable tolerance level. Despite its efficacy in relieving neuropathic pain, more robust methods and comprehensive studies are required to evaluate its effects in relation to co-morbid anxiety and sleep interference in pDPN. The sustained benefits of modulating pain have prompted further exploration of other potential target sites and the development of alternative GABAergic agents such as mirogabalin. This review evaluates the role of pregabalin in the management of pDPN as well as its potential adverse effects, such as somnolence and dizziness, which can lead to withdrawal in ~ 30% of long-term use. Recent concern about misuse and an increase in deaths linked to its use has led to demands for reclassification of pregabalin as a class C controlled substance in the UK. We believe these demands need to be tempered in relation to the difficulties it would create for repeat prescriptions for the many millions of patients with pDPN for whom pregabalin provides benefit.Plain Language Summary: Plain language summary available for this article.

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.

Benefits and harms of pregabalin in the management of neuropathic pain: a rapid review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

To assess the benefits and harms of pregabalin in the management of neuropathic pain.

DESIGN

Rapid review and meta-analysis of phase III, randomised, placebo-controlled trials.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults aged 18 years and above with neuropathic pain defined according to the International Association for the Study of Pain criteria.

INTERVENTIONS

Pregabalin or placebo.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Our primary outcomes were pain (as measured using validated scales) and adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were sleep disturbance, quality of life, Patient Global Impression of Change, Clinician Global Impression scale, anxiety and depression scores, overall discontinuations and discontinuations because of adverse events.

RESULTS

We included 28 trials comprising 6087 participants. The neuropathic pain conditions studied were diabetic peripheral neuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, herpes zoster, sciatica (radicular pain), poststroke pain and spinal cord injury-related pain. Patients who took pregabalin reported significant reductions in pain (numerical rating scale (NRS)) compared with placebo (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.49 (95% CI -0.66 to -0.32, p<0.00001), very low quality evidence). Pregabalin significantly reduced sleep interference scores (NRS) compared with placebo (SMD -0.38 (95% CI -0.50 to -0.26, p<0.00001), moderate quality evidence. Pregabalin significantly increased the risk of adverse events compared with placebo (RR 1.33 (95% CI 1.23 to 1.44, p<0.00001, low quality evidence)). The risks of experiencing weight gain, somnolence, dizziness, peripheral oedema, fatigue, visual disturbances, ataxia, non-peripheral oedema, vertigo and euphoria were significantly increased with pregabalin. Pregabalin was significantly more likely than placebo to lead to discontinuation of the drug because of adverse events (RR 1.91 (95% CI 1.54 to 2.37, p<0.00001), low quality evidence).

CONCLUSION

Pregabalin has beneficial effects on some symptoms of neuropathic pain. However, its use significantly increases the risk of a number of adverse events and discontinuation due to adverse events. The quality of the evidence from journal publications is low.

Using time series analysis approaches for improved prediction of pain outcomes in subgroups of patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy

Prior work applied hierarchical clustering, coarsened exact matching (CEM), time series regressions with lagged variables as inputs, and microsimulation to data from three randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and a large German observational study (OS) to predict pregabalin pain reduction outcomes for patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Here, data were added from six RCTs to reduce covariate bias of the same OS and improve accuracy and/or increase the variety of patients for pain response prediction. Using hierarchical cluster analysis and CEM, a matched dataset was created from the OS (N = 2642) and nine total RCTs (N = 1320). Using a maximum likelihood method, we estimated weekly pain scores for pregabalin-treated patients for each cluster (matched dataset); the models were validated with RCT data that did not match with OS data. We predicted novel ‘virtual’ patient pain scores over time using simulations including instance-based machine learning techniques to assign novel patients to a cluster, then applying cluster-specific regressions to predict pain response trajectories. Six clusters were identified according to baseline variables (gender, age, insulin use, body mass index, depression history, pregabalin monotherapy, prior gabapentin, pain score, and pain-related sleep interference score). CEM yielded 1766 patients (matched dataset) having lower covariate imbalances. Regression models for pain performed well (adjusted R-squared 0.90–0.93; root mean square errors 0.41–0.48). Simulations showed positive predictive values for achieving >50% and >30% change-from-baseline pain score improvements (range 68.6–83.8% and 86.5–93.9%, respectively). Using more RCTs (nine vs. the earlier three) enabled matching of 46.7% more patients in the OS dataset, with substantially reduced global imbalance vs. not matching. This larger RCT pool covered 66.8% of possible patient characteristic combinations (vs. 25.0% with three original RCTs) and made prediction possible for a broader spectrum of patients.

Trial Registration: www.clinicaltrials.gov (as applicable): NCT00156078, NCT00159679, NCT00143156, NCT00553475.

Prediction of therapeutic response to pregabalin in subjects with neuropathic pain

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate four models based on potential predictors for achieving a response to pregabalin treatment for neuropathic pain (NeP).

METHODS

In total, 46 pain studies were screened, of which 27 NeP studies met the criteria for inclusion in this analysis. Data were pooled from these 27 placebo-controlled randomized trials to assess if baseline characteristics (including mean pain and pain-related sleep interference [PRSI] scores), early clinical response during weeks 1-3 of treatment (change from baseline in pain and PRSI scores), and presence of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were predictive of therapeutic response. Therapeutic response was defined as a ≥30% reduction from baseline in either pain and/or PRSI scores at week 5 with supplemental analyses to predict pain outcomes at weeks 8 and 12. Predictors of Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) were also evaluated. Four models were assessed: Random Forest, Logistic Regression, Naïve Bayes, and Partial Least Squares.

RESULTS

The number of pregabalin-treated subjects in the training/test datasets, respectively, were 2818/1407 (30% pain analysis), 2812/1405 (30% sleep analysis), and 2693/1345 (PGIC analysis). All four models demonstrated consistent results, and the most important predictors of treatment outcomes at week 5 and pain outcomes at weeks 8 and 12 were the reduction in pain score and sleep score in the first 1-3 weeks. The presence or absence of the most common AEs in the first 1-3 weeks was not correlated with any treatment outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Subjects with an early response to pregabalin are more likely to experience an end-of-treatment response.

The efficacy of pregabalin for treating pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy in subjects with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of pregabalin for painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (pDPN) in subjects with type 1 (T1DM) or 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

Pooled data from 10 randomized clinical trials (pregabalin-treated T1DM and T2DM subjects with pDPN) were analyzed for change from baseline (CFB) scores (pain and sleep disturbance) using mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) through Week 12 and last observation carried forward (LOCF). Adverse events (AEs) were recorded.

RESULTS

Pregabalin-treated (T1DM 156 [8.7%]; T2DM 1632 [91.3%]) and placebo subjects (T1DM 92 [9.6%]; T2DM 868 [90.4%]) had comparable baseline demographic characteristics between treatment groups within the same diabetes type. T2DM (vs. T1DM) subjects were ∼10 years older. With pregabalin and placebo, respectively, mean ± SD baseline pain (T1DM: 6.2 ± 1.4 and 6.5 ± 1.6; T2DM: 6.5 ± 1.5 and 6.4 ± 1.5) and sleep scores (T1DM: 5.2 ± 2.4 and 5.2 ± 2.7; T2DM: 5.3 ± 2.5 and 5.1 ± 2.5) were comparable. Using MMRM, mean CFB treatment differences (pregabalin minus placebo) were significantly different for pain and sleep with either diabetes types (all weeks p < .05). With LOCF, pregabalin's odds ratios (ORs) of achieving 30% pain reduction were similar with T2DM (OR, 1.91, 95% CI [1.61, 2.27]) and T1DM (2.01 [1.18, 3.44]) (both p ≤ .01). Pregabalin's ORs of 30% improvement in sleep quality were 1.81 (95% CI, 1.06, 3.09) with T1DM and 2.01 (1.69, 2.39) with T2DM (both p < .05). AEs were consistent with the known safety profile of pregabalin.

CONCLUSIONS

Pregabalin significantly improved pain and sleep quality, without a clinically meaningful difference between diabetes types. ClinicalTrial.gov registration: NCT00156078, NCT00159679, NCT00143156, NCT00553475.

Predicting Responses to Pregabalin for Painful Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy Based on Trajectory-Focused Patient Profiles Derived from the First 4 Weeks of Treatment

INTRODUCTION

Prediction of final clinical outcomes based on early weeks of treatment can enable more effective patient care for chronic pain. Our goal was to predict, with at least 90% accuracy, 12- to 13-week outcomes for pregabalin-treated painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (pDPN) patients based on 4 weeks of pain and pain-related sleep interference data.

METHODS

We utilized active treatment data from six placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials (n = 939) designed to evaluate efficacy of pregabalin for reducing pain in patients with pDPN. We implemented a three-step, trajectory-focused analytics approach based upon patient responses collected during the first 4 weeks using monotonicity, path length, frequency domain (FD), and k-nearest neighbor (kNN) methods. The first two steps were based on combinations of baseline pain, pain at 4 weeks, weekly monotonicity and path length during the first 4 weeks, and assignment of patients to one of four responder groups (based on presence/absence of 50% or 30% reduction from baseline pain at 4 and at 12/13 weeks). The third step included agreement between prediction of logistic regression of daily FD amplitudes and assignment made from kNN analyses.

RESULTS

Step 1 correctly assigned 520/939 patients from the six studies to a responder group using a 3-metric combination approach based on unique assignment to a 50% responder group. Step 2 (applied to the remaining 419 patients) predicted an additional 121 patients, using a blend of 50% and 30% responder thresholds. Step 3 (using a combination of FD and kNN analyses) predicted 204 of the remaining 298 patients using the 50% responder threshold. Our approach correctly predicted 90.0% of all patients.

CONCLUSION

By correctly predicting 12- to 13-week responder outcomes with 90% accuracy based on responses from the first month of treatment, we demonstrated the value of trajectory measures in predicting pDPN patient response to pregabalin.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.clinicaltrials.gov identifiers, NCT00156078/NCT00159679/NCT00143156/NCT00553475.

FUNDING

Pfizer. Plain language summary available for this article.

Duloxetine in patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain in Japan: a randomized, doubleblind, noninferiority comparative study with pregabalin

Purpose

Duloxetine and pregabalin are recommended as first-line treatments for diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP). However, studies have not reported a direct comparison between duloxetine and pregabalin. We conducted a postmarketing, randomized, double-blind study to assess the noninferiority of duloxetine compared with pregabalin after 12 weeks of treatment in adult patients with DPNP in Japan (NCT02417935).

Patients and methods

Patients (N = 303) with distal symmetrical DPNP were randomized to and were administered duloxetine (40–60 mg/day) or pregabalin (300–600 mg/day). The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in weekly mean of the 24-hour average pain score (numeric rating scale [NRS]). Noninferiority of duloxetine compared with pregabalin was assessed with the primary endpoint at week 12. Secondary measures, including night pain and worst pain, Brief Pain Inventory-Severity and Interference rating short form (BPI-SF), Clinical Global Impression of Improvement (CGI-I), Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I), and Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI), health outcome measures (EuroQol 5-Dimension index and VAS), and safety were also assessed.

Results

For the 24-hour NRS average pain score, the difference between the duloxetine and pregabalin groups was 0.072 (95% CI: – 0.295, 0.439), and the upper bound of the 95% CI (0.439) did not exceed the predefined noninferiority margin (0.51), at the end of the study period. For secondary outcome measures (night pain, worst pain, BPI-SF, CGI-I, PGI-I, NPSI) and health outcome measures, both the duloxetine and pregabalin treatment groups showed an improvement from baseline with no significant between-group difference. Duloxetine and pregabalin were well tolerated and the safety profiles were consistent with previously reported results.

Conclusion

This study demonstrated the noninferior efficacy of duloxetine compared with pregabalin in the treatment of adult patients with DPNP. The safety analyses showed an acceptable tolerability based on safety profiles of duloxetine and pregabalin.

Pregabalin Prescription for Neuropathic Pain and Fibromyalgia: A Descriptive Study Using Administrative Database in Japan

Objective

To assess dose, characteristics, and coprescribed analgesics in patients newly prescribed pregabalin for neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia in Japan.

Methods

Based on the medical and prescription information present in the Medical Data Vision database, we analyzed the initial and maximum daily doses, prescription period, coprescribed analgesics, and neuropathic pain-related disorders of patients newly prescribed pregabalin between 01 July 2010 and 31 December 2013.

Results

A total of 45,331 patients (mean age 66.8 years, 48.7% men) were newly prescribed pregabalin during this period. The mean initial and maximum daily doses were 97.3 mg and 127.8 mg, respectively, and decreased yearly. The duration of the prescription period was 111.9 (mean) and 53 (median) days, and the frequently coprescribed analgesics included NSAIDs, opioids, and Neurotropin®. About one half of the patients had spinal disorders.

Conclusion

In Japan during the period examined, the number of newly prescribed pregabalin users increased, but the initial and maximum daily doses decreased yearly after pregabalin went on the market. The maximum daily dose in Japan was lower than those reported in the USA and Europe. These differences might be associated with patient age and physical status and with anxiety about possible adverse events.

Executive summary of the Clinical Guidelines of Pharmacotherapy for Neuropathic Pain: second edition by the Japanese Society of Pain Clinicians

Neuropathic pain has a substantial effect on quality of life (QOL). The Japanese Society of Pain Clinicians (JSPC) has developed clinical guidelines of pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain. These guidelines offer clarity on recommendations based on both the most recent scientific evidence and expert opinions. Understanding the concept, disease entity, and burden of neuropathic pain, as well as its screening and diagnosis are important steps before starting pharmacotherapy. As well as other guidelines, the guidelines propose several lines of pharmacotherapies in a step-wise manner. To name a few different points, our guidelines propose an extract from inflamed cutaneous tissue of rabbits inoculated with vaccinia virus, which has been found to be effective for post-herpetic neuralgia in Japan, as one of the second-line drugs. When prescribing opioid analgesics, proposed as the third-line drugs, for neuropathic pain, the guidelines recommend physicians continue evaluations on either abuse or addiction. The guidelines do not recommend concomitant use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and acetaminophen because of lack of clinical evidence of their efficacy. If patients do not respond well to pharmacotherapy, which is prescribed in a step-wise manner, other treatment strategies should be considered to improve patients’ activities of daily living and QOL.

Efficacy and safety of pregabalin for painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy in a population of Chinese patients: A randomized placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Limited information exists regarding the efficacy of pregabalin in Chinese patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (pDPN).

METHODS

An 11-week double-blind placebo-controlled trial was performed in Chinese pDPN patients randomized (1 : 1) to 300 mg/day pregabalin or placebo. The primary outcome was change from baseline to endpoint in mean pain score (MPS; 0, no pain; 10, worst possible pain; using the mean of the last seven daily pain scores). Secondary outcomes included weekly MPS and responder status (MPS reduced by ≥30% or ≥50% vs baseline). Subgroup analysis assessed patients with severe (≥7) baseline MPS. Adverse events (AEs) were reported.

RESULTS

In all, 620 patients were randomized (pregabalin, n = 313; placebo, n = 307). Improvement in MPS with pregabalin versus placebo was not significant (P = 0.0559). Post hoc sensitivity analyses, excluding one patient/site due to Good Clinical Practice (GCP) non-compliance, showed pregabalin significantly improved MPS when excluding the patient (P = 0.0448) or site (P = 0.0142). Pregabalin significantly improved weekly MPS (P = 0.0164) and ≥50% responders at endpoint (P = 0.0384). Improvement in proportion of ≥30% responders, impression of change, pain intensity, and sleep did not differ significantly between the treatment groups. In the severe pDPN subpopulation, pregabalin significantly improved MPS versus placebo (P = 0.0040). The most commonly reported AE was dizziness (9.6% vs 3.9% with placebo).

CONCLUSIONS

Pregabalin did not significantly improve the primary measure of pain in the trial. Significant reductions in MPS were observed when excluding the GCP non-compliant patient/site and in the severe pDPN subpopulation. Pregabalin was well tolerated in Chinese pDPN patients.

Alternatives to Opioids in the Pharmacologic Management of Chronic Pain Syndromes: A Narrative Review of Randomized, Controlled, and Blinded Clinical Trials

Chronic pain exerts a tremendous burden on individuals and societies. If one views chronic pain as a single disease entity, then it is the most common and costly medical condition. At present, medical professionals who treat patients in chronic pain are recommended to provide comprehensive and multidisciplinary treatments, which may include pharmacotherapy. Many providers use nonopioid medications to treat chronic pain; however, for some patients, opioid analgesics are the exclusive treatment of chronic pain. However, there is currently an epidemic of opioid use in the United States, and recent guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have recommended that the use of opioids for nonmalignant chronic pain be used only in certain circumstances. The goal of this review was to report the current body of evidence-based medicine gained from prospective, randomized-controlled, blinded studies on the use of nonopioid analgesics for the most common noncancer chronic pain conditions. A total of 9566 studies were obtained during literature searches, and 271 of these met inclusion for this review. Overall, while many nonopioid analgesics have been found to be effective in reducing pain for many chronic pain conditions, it is evident that the number of high-quality studies is lacking, and the effect sizes noted in many studies are not considered to be clinically significant despite statistical significance. More research is needed to determine effective and mechanism-based treatments for the chronic pain syndromes discussed in this review. Utilization of rigorous and homogeneous research methodology would likely allow for better consistency and reproducibility, which is of utmost importance in guiding evidence-based care.

Searching ClinicalTrials.gov did not change the conclusions of a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

We assessed the effect of searching ClinicalTrials.gov on the conclusions of a systematic review.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted this case study concurrently with a systematic review. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov on March 9, 2016, to identify trial records eligible for inclusion in the review. Two independent reviewers screened ClinicalTrials.gov records. We compared conclusions and strength of evidence grade with and without ClinicalTrials.gov records for 31 comparisons and 2 outcomes.

RESULTS

We identified 106 trials (53 in the peer-reviewed literature only, 23 in ClinicalTrials.gov only, and 30 in both sources). For one comparison, the addition of results identified through ClinicalTrials.gov reduced the pooled effect size. We found evidence of selective outcome reporting for two comparisons and suspected publication bias for another two comparisons. For all other comparisons, searching ClinicalTrials.gov did not change conclusions or the strength of evidence grading for the two outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Our search of ClinicalTrials.gov bolstered suspicions of reporting biases but did not change either the conclusions or the strength of evidence grading. Further research is needed to determine the effect of searching ClinicalTrials.gov on the conclusions of systematic reviews in different topic areas and as the new rules for registration of trial results take effect.

Pregabalin for the treatment of neuropathic pain: a narrative review for primary care providers

BACKGROUND

Neuropathic pain (NeP) is a distinct type of pain caused by damage to the nervous system itself. This often severe and chronic type of pain requires specific treatments that target the underlying pain pathophysiology.

AIM

The purpose of the current narrative review is to provide an overview of pregabalin (Lyrica ¹ ) for the treatment of NeP including its effects on pain, pain-related sleep interference, and other health-related outcomes, timing of therapeutic effect, safety and tolerability, and dosing. The information provided here will help primary care providers develop more effective NeP treatment strategies.

Neuropathic pain responds better to increased doses of pregabalin: an in-depth analysis of flexible-dose clinical trials

Background

Pregabalin is an effective treatment option for many patients with neuropathic pain. Higher doses of pregabalin have been shown to be more effective in improving pain outcomes but, in practice, failing to appropriately increase the dose can leave patients under-treated.

Methods

This was a pooled analysis of 6 flexible-dose clinical trials of pregabalin in patients with neuropathic pain (diabetic peripheral neuropathy, peripheral herpetic neuralgia, posttraumatic pain, or postsurgical pain). Patients were divided into “dose pathway” groups based on their weekly pregabalin dose from the start of their trial to the first week of their maintenance phase. These were: 150 mg/day only; 150 to 300 mg/day; 150 to 300 to 450 mg/day; 150 to 300 to 450 to 600 mg/day; 150 to 300 to 600 mg/day; 300 to 600 mg/day. Pain outcomes assessed for each group at each new dose were proportion of 30% and 50% responders (≥30% or ≥50% reduction in mean pain score from baseline) and mean change in pain score. Percent change in mean pain score from baseline was assessed using a marginal structural model.

Results

Seven hundred and sixty-one patients treated with flexible-dose pregabalin were included in the analysis. For each dose pathway group, there was a notably greater proportion of 30% and 50% responders and change in pain score, at each escalating dose. As assessed by the marginal structural model, higher doses of pregabalin were estimated to result in a significantly greater change in mean pain score at each week. This dose response with flexible-dose pregabalin was consistent with that previously observed with fixed-dose pregabalin.

Conclusion

Many patients who do not respond to lower doses of pregabalin will respond with notable improvements in pain outcomes when the dose is escalated. These data should encourage physicians treating patients with neuropathic pain to escalate pregabalin to the dose that delivers optimal analgesia and tolerable side effects.