Prediction of Pregabalin-Mediated Pain Response by Severity of Sleep Disturbance in Patients with Painful Diabetic Neuropathy and Post-Herpetic Neuralgia

Effect of Korean Medicine Treatment on Patients with Postherpetic Neuralgia: A Retrospective Chart Review

Evidence regarding Korean medicine treatment (KMT) for neuropathic pain is lacking. We aimed to identify the effects of integrative KMT in patients with postherpetic neuralgia (PHN). We retrospectively analyzed the electronic medical records of patients with PHN who received KMT at Kyung Hee University Korean Medicine Hospital between August 2021 and July 2022. We evaluated the effects of KMT-comprising acupuncture, pharmacopuncture, herbal medicine, cupping, and moxibustion-on pain intensity using the numerical rating scale (NRS), Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Anxiety (HADS-A), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Depression (HADS-D), Daily Sleep Interference Scale (DSIS), Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), and EuroQol-5D. Among 53 patients with PHN, 13 were included. The NRS score for worst pain over 1 week decreased from 6.54 ± 0.64 at baseline to 3.85 ± 0.63 at 8 weeks (41% reduction, p < 0.01), while that for average pain over 1 week decreased from 4.93 ± 0.67 at baseline to 3.08 ± 0.46 at 8 weeks (37% reduction, p < 0.01). From baseline to 8 weeks, there were significant reductions in the SF-MPQ, HADS-A, FSS, and EuroQol-5D scores. No adverse events were reported after KMT. Therefore, KMT may be an effective treatment option for patients with PHN.

Quality of life of persons with painful diabetic neuropathy: How can we improve it?

Painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) is difficult to treat, with pharmacological treatments providing only partial pain relief that is limited by medication side effects. This necessitates a holistic approach to pain control,with pharmacological treatments supplemented by the management of psychosocial aspects of pain experience. Pain catastrophising and psychological flexibility are among the psychological constructs impacting persons' adaptation to PDN. While the former increases disability and reduces quality of life (QoL), the latter leads to less functional impairment and depression. Specific fears, and in particular, fear of falling, are significantly associated with pain-related disability and reduced QoL. The role of secondary parameters ofpain experience, including sleep and mood disturbancesas the potential guides to the selection of pharmacological treatmentsis yet to be established. Over the past decade there has been a steady increase in studies testing psychological interventions, including cognitive behavioural therapy and its several modifications, to manage pain in DN sufferers.Thesepilot and feasibility studies demonstrated the potential beneficial effects on pain severity and pain interference, depression and QoL in adults with PDN.Adequately powered trials are needed to confirm the effectiveness of these interventions in terms of pain experience and their impact on QoL.

Personalized treatment of neuropathic pain: Where are we now?

BACKGROUND

The treatment of neuropathic pain remains a major unmet need that the development of personalized and refined treatment strategies may contribute to address.

DATABASE

In this narrative review, we summarize the various approaches based on objective biomarkers or clinical markers that could be used.

RESULTS

In principle, the validation of objective biomarkers would be the most robust approach. However, although promising results have been reported demonstrating a potential value of genomics, anatomical or functional markers, the clinical validation of these markers has only just begun. Thus, most of the strategies documented to date have been based on the development of clinical markers. In particular, many studies have suggested that the identification of specific subgroups of patients presenting with specific combinations of symptoms and signs would be a relevant approach. Two main approaches have been used to identify relevant sensory profiles: quantitative sensory testing and specific patients reported outcomes based on description of pain qualities.

CONCLUSION

We discuss here the advantages and limitations of these approaches, which are not mutually exclusive.

SIGNIFICANCE

Recent data indicate that various new treatment strategies based on predictive biological and/or clinical markers could be helpful to better personalized and therefore improve the management of neuropathic pain.

Pregabalin in patients with post-traumatic peripheral neuropathic pain: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of pregabalin versus placebo in post-traumatic peripheral neuropathic pain (PTNP).

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched for relevant evidence up to January 2022. The Cochran tool was used to assess the quality of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Data analysis was performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software.

RESULTS

Three RCTs involving 821 patients were included in the meta-analysis. A significant difference was observed between pregabalin and placebo in terms of the pain score (the standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.14, 95% CI: 0.28 to -0.006, p = 0.04) and sleep interference (MD = -0.25, 95% CI: -0.39 to -0.11, p = 0.00). There was also a significant difference between pregabalin and placebo regarding somnolence (risk ratio [RR] = 2.78; 95% CI: 1.64-4.71, p = 0.00), dizziness (RR = 4.13; 95% CI: 2.71-6.28, p = 0.00), and disturbance in attention (RR: 2.97; 95% CI: 1.02-8.65, p = 0.04). However, no significant difference was observed between pregabalin and placebo in terms of headache (RR = 1.20; 95% CI: 0.70-2.06, p = 0.50), fatigue (RR = 1.42; 95% CI: 0.82-2.47, p = 0.20), nausea (RR = 1.52; 95% CI: 0.88-2.62, p = 0.13), constipation (RR = 1.84; 95% CI: 0.78-4.29, p = 0.15), and discontinuation (RR = 1.52; 95% CI: 0.45-5.06, p = 0.49).

CONCLUSION

Compared with placebo, pregabalin showed better efficacy in reducing PTNP and improving sleep interference. However, it was associated with higher adverse events. Further RCTs are needed to confirm these findings.

Development and external validation of multivariable risk models to predict incident and resolved neuropathic pain: a DOLORisk Dundee study

Neuropathic pain is difficult to treat, and an understanding of the risk factors for its onset and resolution is warranted. This study aimed to develop and externally validate two clinical risk models to predict onset and resolution of chronic neuropathic pain. Participants of Generation Scotland: Scottish Family Health Study (GS; general Scottish population; n = 20,221) and Genetic of Diabetes Audit and Research in Tayside Scotland (GoDARTS; n = 5236) were sent a questionnaire on neuropathic pain and followed- -up 18 months later. Chronic neuropathic pain was defined using DN4 scores (≥ 3/7) and pain for 3 months or more. The models were developed in GS using logistic regression with backward elimination based on the Akaike information criterion. External validation was conducted in GoDARTS and assessed model discrimination (ROC and Precision-Recall curves), calibration and clinical utility (decision curve analysis [DCA]). Analysis revealed incidences of neuropathic pain onset (6.0% in GS [236/3903] and 10.7% in GoDARTS [61/571]) and resolution (42.6% in GS [230/540] and 23.7% in GoDARTS [56/236]). Psychosocial and lifestyle factors were included in both onset and resolved prediction models. In GoDARTS, these models showed adequate discrimination (ROC = 0.636 and 0.699), but there was evidence of miscalibration (Intercept = - 0.511 and - 0.424; slope = 0.623 and 0.999). The DCA indicated that the models would provide clinical benefit over a range of possible risk thresholds. To our knowledge, these are the first externally validated risk models for neuropathic pain. The findings are of interest to patients and clinicians in the community, who may take preventative or remedial measures.

Optimizing and Accelerating the Development of Precision Pain Treatments for Chronic Pain: IMMPACT Review and Recommendations

Large variability in the individual response to even the most-efficacious pain treatments is observed clinically, which has led to calls for a more personalized, tailored approach to treating patients with pain (ie, "precision pain medicine"). Precision pain medicine, currently an aspirational goal, would consist of empirically based algorithms that determine the optimal treatments, or treatment combinations, for specific patients (ie, targeting the right treatment, in the right dose, to the right patient, at the right time). Answering this question of "what works for whom" will certainly improve the clinical care of patients with pain. It may also support the success of novel drug development in pain, making it easier to identify novel treatments that work for certain patients and more accurately identify the magnitude of the treatment effect for those subgroups. Significant preliminary work has been done in this area, and analgesic trials are beginning to utilize precision pain medicine approaches such as stratified allocation on the basis of prespecified patient phenotypes using assessment methodologies such as quantitative sensory testing. Current major challenges within the field include: 1) identifying optimal measurement approaches to assessing patient characteristics that are most robustly and consistently predictive of inter-patient variation in specific analgesic treatment outcomes, 2) designing clinical trials that can identify treatment-by-phenotype interactions, and 3) selecting the most promising therapeutics to be tested in this way. This review surveys the current state of precision pain medicine, with a focus on drug treatments (which have been most-studied in a precision pain medicine context). It further presents a set of evidence-based recommendations for accelerating the application of precision pain methods in chronic pain research. PERSPECTIVE: Given the considerable variability in treatment outcomes for chronic pain, progress in precision pain treatment is critical for the field. An array of phenotypes and mechanisms contribute to chronic pain; this review summarizes current knowledge regarding which treatments are most effective for patients with specific biopsychosocial characteristics.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures in Chronic Neuropathic Pain Clinical Trials - A Systematic Literature Review

In neuropathic pain clinical trials, the patient's perspective is often insufficiently reflected focusing mainly on pain intensity. Comparability of outcome assessment is limited due to heterogenous patient reported outcome measures (PROMs). The MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and Embase databases and reference lists of published meta-analyses were searched. Randomized controlled studies assessing treatment efficacy of drugs for chronic neuropathic pain were included. PROMs were assigned to recommended IMMPACT/NeuPSIG domains: pain intensity, pain other aspects, physical functioning, emotional functioning, global improvement and satisfaction, adverse events, participant disposition. Domains and PROMs were compared regarding the publication year and methodological quality of the studies. Within the 251 included studies 200 PROMs were used with 27 being recommended by IMMPACT/NeuPSIG. The number of domains was higher in high/moderate quality studies. The (sub-) domains 'physical functioning', 'global improvement and satisfaction', and 'neuropathic pain quality' were assessed more frequently in high/moderate quality studies and those published after 2011. Recent studies and those of better quality more often used the recommended PROMs. Although neuropathic assessment via PROMs has improved, there is still a high heterogeneity. A standardized core set of outcome domains and should be defined to improve neuropathic pain treatment and to achieve better comparability of clinical trials. Perspective: This systematic literature review assesses the use of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in chronic neuropathic pain. The results show that there is still a high heterogeneity, highlighting the need for a standardized core set of outcome domains and PROMs to improve comparability of clinical trials and neuropathic pain treatment.

Pregabalin for neuropathic pain in primary care settings: recommendations for dosing and titration

Pregabalin is one of the first-line treatments approved for the management of neuropathic pain (NeP). While many patients benefit from treatment with pregabalin, they are often treated with suboptimal doses, possibly due to unfamiliarity around prescribing the drug and/or side effects that can occur with up-titration. This narrative review discusses key aspects of initiating, titrating, and managing patients prescribed pregabalin therapy, and addresses concerns around driving and the potential for abuse, as well as when to seek specialist opinion. To ensure that patients derive maximum therapeutic benefit from the drug, we suggest a 'low and slow' dosing approach to limit common side effects and optimize tolerability alongside patients' expectations. When requiring titration to higher doses, we recommend initiating 'asymmetric dosing,' with the larger dose in the evening. Fully engaging patients in order for them to understand the expected timeline for efficacy and side effects (including their resolution), can also help determine the optimal titration tempo for each individual patient. The 'low and slow' approach also recognizes that patients with NeP are heterogeneous in terms of their optimal therapeutic dose of pregabalin. Hence, it is recommended that general practitioners closely monitor patients and up-titrate according to pain relief and side effects to limit suboptimal dosing or premature discontinuation.

Patient phenotyping in clinical trials of chronic pain treatments: IMMPACT recommendations

There is tremendous interpatient variability in the response to analgesic therapy (even for efficacious treatments), which can be the source of great frustration in clinical practice. This has led to calls for “precision medicine” or personalized pain therapeutics (ie, empirically based algorithms that determine the optimal treatments, or treatment combinations, for individual patients) that would presumably improve both the clinical care of patients with pain and the success rates for putative analgesic drugs in phase 2 and 3 clinical trials. However, before implementing this approach, the characteristics of individual patients or subgroups of patients that increase or decrease the response to a specific treatment need to be identified. The challenge is to identify the measurable phenotypic characteristics of patients that are most predictive of individual variation in analgesic treatment outcomes, and the measurement tools that are best suited to evaluate these characteristics. In this article, we present evidence on the most promising of these phenotypic characteristics for use in future research, including psychosocial factors, symptom characteristics, sleep patterns, responses to noxious stimulation, endogenous pain-modulatory processes, and response to pharmacologic challenge. We provide evidence-based recommendations for core phenotyping domains and recommend measures of each domain.

Therapeutic Effect of Mirogabalin on Peripheral Neuropathic Pain due to Lumbar Spine Disease

Study Design

Retrospective study.

Purpose

This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of mirogabalin in treatment of peripheral neuropathic pain due to lumbar spine disease.

Overview of Literature

Mirogabalin is a novel selective ligand for the α2δ subunit of voltage-gated Ca channels.

Methods

Between April and December 2019, we used mirogabalin to treat 60 consecutive patients (mean age, 67.6 years) with leg symptoms due to lumbar disease. The treatment outcome after 8 weeks of mirogabalin therapy was evaluated by comparing the preand post-administration Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for leg symptoms and sleep disturbance, the NRS and Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire for low back pain (LBP), and the quality of life (QOL) score (based on EuroQol five-dimension five-level scale).

Results

Mirogabalin treatment was stopped at less than eight weeks in eight patients. The remaining 52 patients for evaluation were divided as group 1 (17 patients who presented with leg symptoms that lasted for less than 3 months) and group 2 (35 patients with leg symptoms that lasted longer than 3 months). The leg symptoms and LBP in both groups significantly improved at 4 and 8 weeks of treatment, and sleep disturbance and QOL were improved at 8 weeks as well. Compared to group 2, the pretreatment leg symptoms and QOL were significantly worse in group 1, and their improvement after 8 weeks of mirogabalin treatment was significantly better (p<0.05). Of the 60 original patients, 17 suffered adverse effects, which were mild in 16 patients and required treatment cessation due to excessive weight gain in one patient.

Conclusions

We have validated the effect of mirogabalin on neuropathic pain due to lumbar spine disease, which has effectively addressed the associated leg symptoms, LBP, and sleep disturbance.

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.

Assessing the Value of Time Series Real-World and Clinical Trial Data vs. Baseline-Only Data in Predicting Responses to Pregabalin Therapy for Patients with Painful Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Treatment challenges necessitate new approaches to customize care to individual patient needs. Integrating data from randomized controlled trials and observational studies may reduce potential covariate biases, yielding information to improve treatment outcomes. The objective of this study was to predict pregabalin responses, in individuals with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy, by examining time series data (lagged inputs) collected after treatment initiation vs. baseline using microsimulation.

METHODS

The platform simulated pregabalin-treated patients to estimate hypothetical future pain responses over 6 weeks based on six distinct time series regressions with lagged variables as inputs (hereafter termed "time series regressions"). Data were from three randomized controlled trials (N = 398) and an observational study (N = 3159). Regressions were derived after performing a hierarchical cluster analysis with a matched patient dataset from coarsened exact matching. Regressions were validated using unmatched (observational study vs. randomized controlled trial) patients. Predictive implications (of 6-week outcomes) were compared using only baseline vs. 1- to 2-week prior data.

RESULTS

Time series regressions for pain performed well (adjusted R² 0.85-0.91; root mean square error 0.53-0.57); those with only baseline data performed less well (adjusted R² 0.13-0.44; root mean square error 1.11-1.40). Simulated patient distributions yielded positive predictive values for > 50% pain score improvements from baseline for the six clusters (287-777 patients each; range 0.87-0.98).

CONCLUSIONS

Effective prediction of pregabalin response for painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy was accomplished through combining cluster analyses, coarsened exact matching, and time series regressions, reflecting distinct patterns of baseline and "on-treatment" variables. These results advance the understanding of microsimulation to predict patient treatment responses through integration and inter-relationships of multiple, complex, and time-dependent characteristics.

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

Impact of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation on sleep in chronic low back pain: a real-world retrospective cohort study

Objective

The purpose of this study was to determine if transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) improves sleep in chronic low back pain (CLBP).

Background

There is uncertainty over the effectiveness of TENS in CLBP. In most studies, pain intensity has been the primary outcome measure. Although sleep abnormalities are common in CLBP, sleep outcomes have not been evaluated in most studies of TENS effectiveness. Subjective and objective sleep measures are often inconsistent in CLBP, suggesting that perception of sleep and actual sleep may differ.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study evaluated TENS for CLBP over 10 weeks. The source database included demographics, pain characteristics, pain intensity and interference on an 11-point numerical rating scale, adherence and actigraphic sleep data from real-world TENS users. Key inclusion criteria were CLBP with self-reported history of back injury and baseline pain interference with sleep ≥4. Study participants were stratified into improved and unimproved groups based on changes in pain interference with sleep (improved ≥1-point decrease). Actigraphic sleep metrics were compared between the two groups for weeks 1–2 and weeks 9–10.

Results

The inclusion criteria were met by 554 TENS users. There were 282 (50.9%) participants in the improved group and 272 (49.1%) in the unimproved group. The two groups had similar baseline characteristics and high TENS adherence. At the weeks 1–2 assessment, there were no differences among actigraphic sleep. At the weeks 9–10 assessment, there was a difference in total sleep time, with the improved group sleeping 29 minutes longer. In addition, the periodic leg movement (PLM) index was lower in the improved group.

Conclusion

Regular TENS improved self-reported and objective sleep measures in individuals with CLBP. When compared to the unimproved group, the improved group had longer total sleep time and fewer PLMs. Sleep may be an important outcome for TENS effectiveness in CLBP.

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.

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.

TNM cancer staging: can it help develop a novel staging system for type 2 diabetes?

Type 2 diabetes (DM2) constitutes 90%-95% of the diabetes cases and is increasing at an alarming rate in the world. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that more than 29 million people in the United States have diabetes, which often causes mortality from macrovascular complications and morbidity from microvascular complications. Despite these troubling facts, there is currently no widely accepted staging system for DM2 like there is for cancer. TNM oncologic staging has taken a complex condition like cancer and conveyed likelihood of survival in simple alpha-numeric terms that both patients and providers can understand. Oncology is now entering the era of precision medicine where cancer treatment is increasingly being tailored to each patient's cancer. In contrast, DM2 lacks a staging system and remains a largely invisible disease even though it kills more Americans and costs more to treat than cancer. Is a comparable staging system for DM2 possible? We propose the Diabetes Staging System for DM2 that utilizes macrovascular events, microvascular complications, estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR), and hemoglobin A1C to stage DM2.

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.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of pregabalin for postherpetic neuralgia in Chinese and international patients

Purpose

Pregabalin is indicated for postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) in multiple countries, including China. This analysis compared pregabalin efficacy and safety in Chinese and international patients with PHN.

Patients and methods

Data from Chinese and international randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials were compared. Pregabalin was administered at fixed (150, 300, or 600 mg/day) or flexible (150–600 mg/day) doses. The main efficacy measure was mean pain score change at endpoint on an 11-point numeric rating scale ranging from 0 = no pain to 10 = worst possible pain. Secondary efficacy measures included proportions of 30% and 50% pain responders, pain-related sleep interference (PRSI) scores, and proportions of Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) responders. The incidences of serious adverse events (SAEs) and adverse events (AEs) were used to assess safety. The effect of baseline pain severity on efficacy was tested. The proportions of patients with severe baseline pain who had moderate or mild pain at endpoint were also assessed.

Results

A total of 1166 patients were analyzed: 312 Chinese and 854 international. Overall, results were similar between Chinese and international patients. Pregabalin statistically significantly improved mean pain score versus placebo (least squares mean difference [95% CIs]: Chinese, −0.8 [–1.2, −0.5]; international, −1.3 [–1.6, −1.0]; both p<0.001). Pregabalin was statistically significantly better than placebo in Chinese and international patient groups in the proportions of 30% and 50% pain responders, PRSI scores, and proportions of PGIC responders. Baseline pain severity did not affect efficacy, except for some measures in Chinese patients with moderate baseline pain. Similar proportions of pregabalin-treated patients with severe baseline pain had moderate or mild pain at endpoint in both groups. SAE and AE profiles were comparable in Chinese and international patient groups, except incidences were commonly higher in international patients.

Conclusion

Chinese and international patients with PHN exhibit comparable pregabalin efficacy and safety, highlighting the utility of pregabalin for diverse PHN patient populations.

Efficacy of Mirogabalin (DS-5565) on Patient-Reported Pain and Sleep Interference in Patients with Diabetic Neuropathic Pain: Secondary Outcomes of a Phase II Proof-of-Concept Study

Objective

To evaluate the effects of mirogabalin on patient-reported pain and sleep interference in diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).

Subjects

Adults (≥18 years) with type 1 or 2 diabetes, glycosylated hemoglobin of 10% or less at screening, and DPNP for six months or more were eligible for participation.

Methods

Subjects (N = 452) were randomly assigned (2:1:1:1:1:1:1) to receive placebo, dose-ranging mirogabalin (5, 10, 15, 20, 30 mg/day), or pregabalin (300 mg/day) for five weeks. Secondary efficacy end points studied here included patient global impression of change (PGIC), modified brief pain inventory (BPI), and average daily sleep interference score (ADSIS). Correlation plots were generated to examine the relationship between ADSIS and average daily pain score (ADPS).

Results

At week 5, significant reductions in ADSIS were observed in the mirogabalin 15, 20, and 30 mg/day groups, compared with placebo (P < 0.05). Baseline ADSIS and ADPS were strongly correlated (R2 = 0.4407), as were mean changes from baseline in ADSIS and ADPS at week 5 (R2 = 0.6694). The mirogabalin 30 mg/day group showed significant improvement compared with placebo in four of six BPI subscales at end point; the mirogabalin 15 mg/day group showed significant improvement in three of six BPI subscales (P < 0.05). At end of treatment, the percentage of subject with PGIC status of "much improved or better" was greater in all mirogabalin dose groups than in the placebo group (P < 0.05). A low incidence of treatment-related adverse events was reported for mirogabalin.

Conclusions

Results support the effectiveness of mirogabalin in improving patient-reported pain and sleep interference in DPNP.

Chronic Pain and Sleep Disorders in Primary Care

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain (CP) and sleep disorders (SD) are highly prevalent in the general population. However, comprehensive data regarding the prevalence and characteristics of pain and SD in primary care are rare.

METHODS

From N = 578 patients N = 570 were included within 8 weeks (mean age: 50.8 ± 18.7 years, females: 289). Sociodemographic data, Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), and parts of a self-report questionnaire for pain (Multidimensional German Pain Questionnaire) were recorded and additional medical information (pain medication, sleep medication) was gathered from the patient charts.

RESULTS

Of the total sample, 33.2% (n = 189) suffer from CP (pain ≥ 6 months) and 29.1% (n = 166) from SD. 45.5% of the CP patients suffer from SD and 26.5% from clinical insomnia (ISI ≥ 15). SD (β = 0.872, SE = 0.191,  t = 4,572, p < 0.001, CI [0.497; 1.246]) and older age (β = 0.025, SE = 0.005, t = 5.135, p < 0.001, CI [0.015; 0.035]) were significantly associated with pain experience.

CONCLUSION

About a quarter of CP patients suffer from clinical insomnia. The suggested bidirectional relation should be considered during comprehensive assessment and treatment of patients.

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.

Integrating data from randomized controlled trials and observational studies to predict the response to pregabalin in patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy

BACKGROUND

More patient-specific medical care is expected as more is learned about variations in patient responses to medical treatments. Analytical tools enable insights by linking treatment responses from different types of studies, such as randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. Given the importance of evidence from both types of studies, our goal was to integrate these types of data into a single predictive platform to help predict response to pregabalin in individual patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (pDPN).

METHODS

We utilized three pivotal RCTs of pregabalin (398 North American patients) and the largest observational study of pregabalin (3159 German patients). We implemented a hierarchical cluster analysis to identify patient clusters in the Observational Study to which RCT patients could be matched using the coarsened exact matching (CEM) technique, thereby creating a matched dataset. We then developed autoregressive moving average models (ARMAXs) to estimate weekly pain scores for pregabalin-treated patients in each cluster in the matched dataset using the maximum likelihood method. Finally, we validated ARMAX models using Observational Study patients who had not matched with RCT patients, using t tests between observed and predicted pain scores.

RESULTS

Cluster analysis yielded six clusters (287-777 patients each) with the following clustering variables: gender, age, pDPN duration, body mass index, depression history, pregabalin monotherapy, prior gabapentin use, baseline pain score, and baseline sleep interference. CEM yielded 1528 unique patients in the matched dataset. The reduction in global imbalance scores for the clusters after adding the RCT patients (ranging from 6 to 63% depending on the cluster) demonstrated that the process reduced the bias of covariates in five of the six clusters. ARMAX models of pain score performed well (R ² : 0.85-0.91; root mean square errors: 0.53-0.57). t tests did not show differences between observed and predicted pain scores in the 1955 patients who had not matched with RCT patients.

CONCLUSION

The combination of cluster analyses, CEM, and ARMAX modeling enabled strong predictive capabilities with respect to pain scores. Integrating RCT and Observational Study data using CEM enabled effective use of Observational Study data to predict patient responses.

Patient phenotyping in clinical trials of chronic pain treatments: IMMPACT recommendations

There is tremendous interpatient variability in the response to analgesic therapy (even for efficacious treatments), which can be the source of great frustration in clinical practice. This has led to calls for "precision medicine" or personalized pain therapeutics (ie, empirically based algorithms that determine the optimal treatments, or treatment combinations, for individual patients) that would presumably improve both the clinical care of patients with pain and the success rates for putative analgesic drugs in phase 2 and 3 clinical trials. However, before implementing this approach, the characteristics of individual patients or subgroups of patients that increase or decrease the response to a specific treatment need to be identified. The challenge is to identify the measurable phenotypic characteristics of patients that are most predictive of individual variation in analgesic treatment outcomes, and the measurement tools that are best suited to evaluate these characteristics. In this article, we present evidence on the most promising of these phenotypic characteristics for use in future research, including psychosocial factors, symptom characteristics, sleep patterns, responses to noxious stimulation, endogenous pain-modulatory processes, and response to pharmacologic challenge. We provide evidence-based recommendations for core phenotyping domains and recommend measures of each domain.

Pregabalin in Patients With Painful Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy Using an NSAID for Other Pain Conditions: A Double-Blind Crossover Study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate pregabalin's efficacy and safety versus placebo to reduce pain in patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) using a concomitant nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a randomized, double-masked, 14-week, 2-period, crossover study, patients with painful DPN using a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug for non-DPN-related pain received 150 to 300 mg/d pregabalin or placebo (period 1); 14-day washout; then, the opposite therapy (period 2). Endpoints included weekly change in DPN pain score, sleep interference, adverse events, and patient-reported outcomes.

RESULTS

Patients with similar baseline characteristics were randomized (period 1) to 1 of the 2 following possible sequences: pregabalin→placebo (n=154) or placebo→pregabalin (n=147). Results of the primary efficacy measure, mean weekly DPN pain at endpoint, showed no significant difference between pregabalin and placebo. However, 1 sensitivity analysis (mixed-model repeated measures) found greater pain score reductions with pregabalin than placebo at weeks 2 to 4 and overall (all P<0.05). One secondary endpoint analysis, mean treatment difference in DPN-related sleep interference, favored pregabalin over placebo (P=0.0009). Other sensitivity and secondary analyses were nonsignificant. Treatment-emergent adverse events were consistent with the known safety profile of pregabalin.

DISCUSSION

Pregabalin (vs. placebo) showed overall improvements in sleep, pain reduction in 1 sensitivity analysis, and was well tolerated. Potential factors that may have confounded the ability to detect a treatment difference in DPN pain reduction (high placebo response, carryover effect, short washout period, or pregabalin dose) are discussed in the context of future studies.

Predictors of Response in Patients With Postherpetic Neuralgia and HIV-Associated Neuropathy Treated With the 8% Capsaicin Patch (Qutenza)

OBJECTIVES

Qutenza is a high-dose capsaicin patch used to relieve neuropathic pain from postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) and HIV-associated neuropathy (HIV-AN). In clinical studies, some patients had a dramatic response to the capsaicin patch. Our objective was to determine the baseline characteristics of patients who best benefit from capsaicin patch treatment.

METHODS

We conducted a meta-analysis of 6 completed randomized and controlled Qutenza studies by pooling individual patient data. Sustained response was defined as>50% decrease in the mean pain intensity from baseline to weeks 2 to 12, and Complete Response as an average pain intensity score≤1 during weeks 2 to 12. Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of response and Complete Response, and subgroups of patients who respond best to the capsaicin patch.

RESULTS

Baseline pain intensity score (BPIS)≤4 was a predictor of Sustained and Complete Response in PHN and HIV-AN patients; absence of allodynia and presence of hypoesthesia, and a McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) sensory score <22 were predictors of Sustained Response in PHN patients; female sex was a predictor of Sustained and Complete Response in HIV-AN patients. Thus, characteristics associated with the highest chance of responding to the capsaicin patch were, for PHN, BPIS≤4, MPQ sensory score≤22, absence of allodynia, and presence of hypoesthesia; for HIV-AN, they were female sex and BPIS≤4. Patients with these characteristics had a statistically significantly greater chance of responding to the capsaicin patch than other patients.

DISCUSSION

We identified subpopulations of PHN and HIV-AN patients likely to benefit from the capsaicin patch.

The efficacy of pregabalin in patients with moderate and severe pain due to diabetic peripheral neuropathy

Objective To compare the therapeutic response to pregabalin in patients with moderate or severe painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (pDPN). Research design and methods Data were pooled from 11 placebo-controlled trials to evaluate the efficacy of pregabalin flexible or fixed dose (150, 300 or 600 mg/day) in pDPN patients with mean baseline pain scores of ≥4 to <7 (moderate) or ≥7 to ≤10 (severe). Last observation carried forward imputation was used. Study number/ClinicalTrials.gov identifier 1008-014/-, 1008-029/-, 1008-040/-, 1008-131/-, 1008-149/-, 1008-000-155/-, A0081030/NCT00156078, A0081060/NCT00159679, A0081071/NCT00143156, A0081081/NCT00301223, A0081163/NCT00553475. Main outcome measures Pregabalin-mediated change in pain, pain-related sleep interference (PRSI) and patient global impression of change (PGIC) were compared versus placebo and between moderate and severe pain cohorts. Adverse events (AEs) were reported. Results At baseline, 1816 patients had moderate pain (pregabalin, n = 1189) and 1119 patients had severe pain (pregabalin, n = 720). Pregabalin significantly reduced pain scores at endpoint compared with placebo when patients of all pain levels were combined (all doses; p < 0.05). In the moderate and severe pain cohorts, pregabalin treatment (300, 600 mg/day or flexible) significantly reduced mean pain scores at endpoint compared with placebo (p < 0.01). Pain reduction was greatest in patients with severe baseline pain compared with moderate baseline pain (pregabalin 300, 600 mg/day or flexible; p < 0.0001). Pregabalin improved PRSI and PGIC in the moderate and severe cohorts compared with placebo. The greatest improvement in PRSI also occurred in the severe cohort. Treatment-emergent AEs, most commonly dizziness, somnolence and peripheral edema, occurred more frequently in patients treated with pregabalin compared with placebo. Conclusions Pregabalin was effective in pDPN patients with both moderate and severe baseline pain. Patients with severe pain exhibited greater improvements in pain and PRSI than patients with moderate pain. Pain severity may, in part, predict therapeutic response to pregabalin.

Factors Associated with Increased Risk for Clinical Insomnia in Patients with Postherpetic Neuralgia: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study

OBJECTIVE

To determine the risk factors associated with clinical insomnia in postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) patients.

DESIGN

A retrospective cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Outpatient department for interventional pain management at a university hospital.

SUBJECTS

A total of 111 patients with PHN satisfied the study inclusion criteria and were included in the analyses.

METHODS

The Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) was used to determine the presence of clinical insomnia (ISI score ≥ 15). Patient demographics, pain-related factors, and rash severity and location were evaluated with logistic regression analysis to identify risk factors of clinical insomnia among patients with PHN.

RESULTS

In total, 50.5% of patients reported mild to severe insomnia symptoms (ISI score ≥ 8) after pain development. Moderate to severe clinical insomnia (ISI score ≥ 15) was observed in 30.6% of PHN patients. Multivariate logistic regression analyses revealed that high pain intensity was the strongest predictor of clinical insomnia (odds ratio (OR) = 12.417, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.990-51.561, P = 0.001). However, presence of mechanical allodynia (OR = 4.263, 95% CI: 1.040-17.481, P = 0.034) and high anxiety and depression level (OR = 4.452, 95% CI: 1.201-16.508, P = 0.026; OR = 6.975, 95% CI: 1.425-34.138, P = 0.017) were also significantly associated with clinical insomnia after adjusting for pain score. Clinical insomnia was not significantly related to age, gender, rash severity, or location of skin lesion.

CONCLUSIONS

Insomnia should be addressed as an important part of pain management in PHN patients with these risk factors, especially in patients with severe pain.

Are there different predictors of analgesic response between antidepressants and anticonvulsants in painful diabetic neuropathy?

BACKGROUND

To investigate baseline demographics and disease characteristics as predictors of the analgesic effect of duloxetine and pregabalin on diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).

METHODS

Based on data from the COMBO-DN study, a multinational clinical trial in DPNP, the potential impact of baseline characteristics on pain relief after 8-week monotherapy with 60 mg/day duloxetine or 300 mg/day pregabalin was assessed using analyses of covariance. Subgroups of interest were characterized regarding their baseline characteristics and efficacy outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 804 patients were evaluated at baseline. A significant interaction with treatment was observed in the mood symptom subgroups with a larger pain reduction in duloxetine-treated patients having no mood symptoms [Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) depression or anxiety subscale score <11; -2.33 (duloxetine); -1.52 (pregabalin); p = 0.024]. There were no significant interactions between treatment for subgroups by age (<65 or ≥65 years), gender, baseline pain severity [Brief Pain Inventory Modified Short Form (BPI-MSF) average pain <6 or ≥6], diabetic neuropathy duration (≤2 or >2 years), baseline haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) (<8% or ≥8%), presence of comorbidities and concomitant medication use.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analyses suggest that the efficacy of duloxetine and pregabalin for initial 8-week treatment in DPNP was consistent across examined subgroups based on demographics and disease characteristics at baseline except for the presence of mood symptoms. Duloxetine treatment appeared to be particularly beneficial in DPNP patients having no mood symptoms.

Effectiveness of pregabalin for the treatment of chronic low back pain with accompanying lower limb pain (neuropathic component): a non-interventional study in Japan

Objective

To evaluate the impact of pregabalin on sleep, pain, function, and health status in patients with chronic low back pain with accompanying neuropathic pain (CLBP-NeP) under routine clinical practice.

Methods

This prospective, non-interventional, observational study enrolled Japanese adults (≥18 years) with CLBP-NeP of duration ≥3 months and severity ≥5 on a numerical rating scale (0= no pain, 10= worst possible pain). Treatment was 8 weeks with pregabalin (n=157) or usual care alone (n=174); choice of treatment was determined by the physician. The primary efficacy outcome was change from baseline to 8 weeks in pain-related interference with sleep, assessed using the Pain-Related Sleep Interference Scale (PRSIS; 0= did not interfere with sleep, 10= completely interferes with sleep). Secondary endpoints were changes in PRSIS at week 4, and changes at weeks 4 and 8 in pain (numerical rating scale), function (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire), and quality of life (EuroQol 5D-5L); global assessments of change were evaluated from the clinician and patient perspectives at the final visit.

Results

Demographic characteristics were similar between cohorts, but clinical characteristics suggested greater disease severity in the pregabalin group including a higher mean (standard deviation) pain score, 6.3 (1.2) versus 5.8 (1.1) (P<0.001). For the primary endpoint, pregabalin resulted in significantly greater improvements in PRSIS at week 8, least-squares mean changes of −1.3 versus −0.4 for usual care (P<0.001); pregabalin also resulted in greater PRSIS improvement at week 4 (P=0.012). Relative to usual care at week 8, pregabalin improved pain and function (both P<0.001), and showed global improvements since beginning study medication (P<0.001). Pregabalin was well tolerated.

Conclusion

In clinical practice in patients with CLBP-NeP, pregabalin showed significantly greater improvements in pain-related interference with sleep relative to usual care. In addition, pregabalin significantly improved pain, function, and health status, suggesting the benefits of pregabalin for overall health and well-being relative to usual care in these patients. (Clinicaltrials. gov identifier NCT02273908).

Pregabalin for painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy: strategies for dosing, monotherapy vs. combination therapy, treatment-refractory patients, and adverse events

OBJECTIVE

Primary care physicians face significant challenges when treating painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (pDPN). The physician must determine the best dosing strategy, consider the use of combination therapy, and decide how best to treat patients who have responded poorly to other treatment options in the past. With a focus on these issues, this paper will review the use of pregabalin for the treatment of pDPN in order to provide physicians with clinical data needed to develop, in combination with real-world prescribing data, effective treatment strategies for this common but challenging type of pain.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A formal PubMed search, along with a search of unpublished data from the Pfizer clinical trial database, was used to identify papers describing results from clinical trials of pregabalin in patients with pDPN. Papers were selected for inclusion in the review if they addressed the use of pregabalin in the context of a head-to-head treatment comparison, use in refractory patients, or as part of combination therapy. A discussion of pregabalin dosing and adverse events is also presented.

CONCLUSIONS

There is some difference with respect to the maximum approved dose of pregabalin for the treatment of pDPN in the United States (300 mg/day) and European Union (600 mg/day), though clinical data demonstrate that pregabalin doses >300 mg/day may be beneficial in some patients. Pregabalin has shown efficacy (and is approved) as a monotherapy for pDPN, although several guidelines recommend combination therapy for challenging cases. However, evidence to support combination therapy is sparse and the decision of monotherapy vs. combination therapy should be at the physician's discretion. There are data demonstrating the efficacy of pregabalin in some patients with pDPN who have not responded to other pharmacological treatments, including those unresponsive to treatment with gabapentin. Clinical guidelines acknowledge the paucity of head-to-head data among treatment options, but consistently recommend pregabalin as a first-tier treatment for pDPN.

Efficacy and safety of mirogabalin (DS-5565) for the treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain: a randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active comparator-controlled, adaptive proof-of-concept phase 2 study

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to identify doses of mirogabalin (DS-5565) providing clinically meaningful efficacy with manageable side effects for treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Adults (≥18 years) with type 1 or 2 diabetes, HbA₁c ≤10% at screening, and DPNP for ≥6 months were eligible for study participation. Subjects (n = 452) were randomized (2:1:1:1:1:1:1 ratio) to placebo, dose-ranging mirogabalin (5, 10, 15, 20, and 30 mg/day), or pregabalin (300 mg/day) for 5 weeks. The primary end point was weekly change in average daily pain score (ADPS; 0 to 10 numeric rating scale) from baseline to week 5 (minimally meaningful effect, ≥1.0-point decrease versus placebo). ANCOVA was conducted using last observation carried forward, and treatment effect least squares (LS) means were provided for each contrast. Safety assessments included adverse events (AEs), clinical laboratory tests, and electrocardiograms.

RESULTS

LS mean differences in change in ADPS from baseline to week 5 versus placebo were -0.22, -0.53, -0.94, -0.88, and -1.01 for the mirogabalin 5-, 10-, 15-, 20-, and 30-mg/day treatment groups, respectively, and -0.05 in the pregabalin group (P < 0.05 versus placebo for mirogabalin 15, 20, and 30 mg/day). Most frequent AEs (n = 277) were primarily mild to moderate dizziness (9.4%), somnolence (6.1%), and headache (6.1%); otherwise, mirogabalin was well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Mirogabalin 15, 20, and 30 mg/day had statistically significant reductions in ADPS versus placebo, and mirogabalin 30 mg/day also met the criteria of minimally meaningful effect. Mirogabalin may be a promising new treatment option for patients with DPNP.