Pregabalin versus gabapentin in partial epilepsy: a meta-analysis of dose-response relationships

Gabapentin monotherapy for epilepsy: A review

BACKGROUND

Epilepsy is one of the most common chronic neurological disorders, affecting more than 50 million people globally. In this review we summarised the evidence from randomised controlled trials of gabapentin used as monotherapy for the treatment of focal epilepsy, both newly diagnosed and drug-resistant, with or without secondary generalisation.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effects of gabapentin monotherapy for people with epileptic focal seizures with and without secondary generalisation.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 24 February 2020) on 25 February 2020. CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRA), and the specialised registers of Cochrane Review Groups including the Cochrane Epilepsy Group. We also searched several Russian databases, reference lists of relevant studies, ongoing trials registers, conference proceedings, and we contacted trial authors.

RESULTS

We found five randomised controlled trials (3167 participants) comparing gabapentin to other antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) and differing doses of gabapentin as monotherapy for newly diagnosed focal epilepsy and drug- resistant focal epilepsy with or without secondary generalisation. Two review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria, assessed trial quality, risk of bias, and extracted data. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence and present seven patient-important outcomes in the "Summary of findings" tables. The quality of evidence was very low to moderate due to poor reporting quality, poor trial design, and other risks of bias, such as selective presentation of findings and potential heavy industry input. Better quality research may change our certainty in the effect estimates. None of the included trials reported on the number of people with 50% or greater reduction in seizures and time to withdrawal (retention time) in an extractable way. Gabapentin-treated participants were more likely to withdraw from treatment for any cause (285/539) than those treated with lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine, or topiramate pooled together (695/1317) (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.25; 3 studies, 1856 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but not carbamazepine. Fewer people treated with gabapentin withdrew from treatment owing to adverse events (190/525) than those treated with carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, or topiramate (479/1238), (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.91; 1763 participants, 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), but not lamotrigine.

CONCLUSION

Gabapentin as monotherapy probably controlled seizures no better and no worse than comparator AEDs (lamotrigine, carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, and topiramate). Compared to carbamazepine, gabapentin was probably better in retaining people in studies and preventing withdrawals due to adverse events. The most common side effects associated with gabapentin were ataxia (poor co-ordination and unsteady gait), dizziness, fatigue, and drowsiness.

Influence of pregabalin maintenance on cannabis effects and related behaviors in daily cannabis users

No medications are approved for cannabis use disorder (CUD), though a small clinical trial demonstrated that the voltage-dependent calcium channel (VDCC) ligand gabapentin reduced cannabis use in treatment seekers. VDCCs are modulated by cannabinoid (CB) ligands, and there are shared effects between CB agonists and VDCC ligands. This overlapping neuropharmacology and the initial clinical results supported the evaluation of pregabalin, a "next-generation" VDCC ligand, as a CUD medication. Two separate placebo-controlled, double-blind, counterbalanced, within-subjects human laboratory studies tested placebo and 300 (N = 2 females, 11 males; Experiment [EXP] 1) or 450 (N = 3 females, 11 males; EXP 2) mg/day pregabalin in cannabis users who were not seeking treatment or trying to reduce/quit their cannabis use. The protocol consisted of two outpatient maintenance phases (11 days in EXP 1 and 15 days in EXP 2) that concluded with four experimental sessions within each phase. During experimental sessions, maintenance continued, and participants completed two 2-day blocks of sampling and self-administration sessions to determine the reinforcing effects of smoked cannabis (0% and 5.9% delta⁹-tetrahydrocannabinol [THC]), as well as subjective, attentional bias, performance, and physiological responses. In addition, naturalistic cannabis use, side effects, sleep quality, craving, and other self-reported substance use were measured during pregabalin maintenance. Cannabis was self-administered and produced prototypical effects, but pregabalin generally did not impact the effects of cannabis or alter naturalistic use. These human laboratory results in cannabis users not trying to reduce/quit their use do not support the efficacy of pregabalin as a stand-alone pharmacotherapy for CUD. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Pregabalin add-on for drug-resistant focal epilepsy

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review last published in Issue 7, 2019; it includes two additional studies. Epilepsy is a common neurological disease that affects approximately 1% of the UK population. Approximately one-third of these people continue to have seizures despite drug treatment. Pregabalin is one of the newer antiepileptic drugs that has been developed to improve outcomes. In this review we summarised the current evidence regarding pregabalin when used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and tolerability of pregabalin when used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

SEARCH METHODS

For the latest update we searched the following databases on 16 November 2020: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 16 November 2020). CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised, controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Specialised Registers of Cochrane Review Groups, including Epilepsy. We imposed no language restrictions. We contacted the manufacturers of pregabalin and authors in the field to identify any relevant unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing pregabalin with placebo or an alternative antiepileptic drug as an add-on for people of any age with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. Double-blind and single-blind trials were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency; secondary outcomes were seizure freedom, treatment withdrawal for any reason, treatment withdrawal due to adverse effects, and proportion of individuals experiencing adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted the relevant data. Primary analyses were intention-to-treat (ITT). We presented summary risk ratios (RRs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We evaluated dose response in regression models. We carried out a risk of bias assessment for each included study using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and assessed the overall certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 randomised controlled trials (3949 participants). Nine trials compared pregabalin to placebo. For the primary outcome, participants randomised to pregabalin were significantly more likely to attain a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency compared to placebo (RR 1.95, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.72, 9 trials, 2663 participants, low-certainty evidence). The odds of response doubled with an increase in dose from 300 mg/day to 600 mg/day (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.74 to 2.28), indicating a dose-response relationship. Pregabalin was significantly associated with seizure freedom (RR 3.94, 95% CI 1.50 to 10.37, 4 trials, 1125 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Participants were significantly more likely to withdraw from pregabalin treatment than placebo for any reason (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.60; 9 trials, 2663 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and for adverse effects (RR 2.60, 95% CI 1.86 to 3.64; 9 trials, 2663 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Three trials compared pregabalin to three active-control drugs: lamotrigine, eventrate and gabapentin. Participants allocated to pregabalin were significantly more likely to achieve a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency than those allocated to lamotrigine (RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.12; 1 trial, 293 participants) but not those allocated to eventrate (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.11; 1 trial, 509 participants) or gabapentin (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.12; 1 trial, 484 participants). We found no significant differences between pregabalin and lamotrigine for seizure freedom (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.40 to 4.83). However, significantly fewer participants achieved seizure freedom with add-on pregabalin compared to eventrate (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.85). No data were reported for this outcome for pregabalin versus gabapentin. We detected no significant differences in treatment withdrawal rate for any reason or due to adverse effects, specifically, during either pooled analysis or subgroup analysis. Ataxia, dizziness, somnolence, weight gain, headache and fatigue were significantly associated with pregabalin than in active control. We rated the overall risk of bias in the included studies as low or unclear due to the possibility of publication bias and lack of methodological details provided. We assessed all the studies to be at a high risk of funding bias as they were all sponsored by Pfizer. We rated the certainty of the evidence as very low to moderate using the GRADE approach.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy, pregabalin when used as an add-on treatment was significantly more effective than placebo at producing a 50% or greater seizure reduction and seizure freedom. Results demonstrated efficacy for doses from 150 mg/day to 600 mg/day, with increasing effectiveness at 600 mg doses, although there were issues with tolerability at higher doses. However, the trials included in this review were of short duration, and longer-term trials are needed to inform clinical decision-making. This review focused on the use of pregabalin in drug-resistant focal epilepsy, and the results cannot be generalised to add-on treatment for generalised epilepsies. Likewise, no inference can be made about the effects of pregabalin when used as monotherapy.

Quantitative comparison of dose-effect and time-course of fluticasone furoate and fluticasone propionate in adult and adolescent patients with persistent asthma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

This study aimed to quantitatively compare the efficacy of fluticasone furoate (FF) and fluticasone propionate (FP) in adolescents and adults with asthma. We searched the PubMed and EMBASE databases for placebo-controlled trials that met the inclusion criteria. Pharmacodynamic models were established to describe the time-course of the primary outcome (trough forced expiratory volume in the first second [FEV₁ ]). Secondary outcomes (asthma symptoms, quality of life and exacerbations) were also compared via a meta-analysis. A total of 14 articles were included in the analysis, involving 6640 subjects. The efficacy plateau of the two drugs could be reached in 2 weeks. The changes from the baseline in trough FEV₁ (95% CI) at week 2 of FF at 200 and 100 μg/day were 0.168 L (0.064-0.199) and 0.127 L (0.048-0.163), respectively. The changes from the baseline in trough FEV₁ (95% CI) at week 2 of FP at 1000, 500, 250 and 100 μg/day were 0.133 L (0.049-0.171), 0.127 L (0.043-0.163), 0.117 L (0.039-0.150) and 0.093 L (0.032-0.129), respectively. The efficacy of FP had reached a plateau at the maximum evaluated dose (1000 μg/day), while a plateau effect was not seen at the maximum evaluated dose of FF (200 μg/day). In terms of secondary outcomes, the relative effects of the two drugs relative to the placebo were similar and did not show obvious dose-effect relationships. In this study, the time-course and dose-effect characteristics of FP, FF and placebo were quantitatively evaluated, providing necessary quantitative information for asthma-related guidelines.

Drug Repositioning: Antimalarial Activities of GABA Analogs in Mice Infected with Plasmodium berghei

BACKGROUND

Drug repositioning is becoming popular due to the development of resistance to almost all the recommended antimalarials. Pregabalin and gabapentin are chemical analogs of gamma- aminobutyric acid (GABA) approved for the treatment of epilepsy and neuropathic pain.

OBJECTIVE

This study investigates acute toxicities and antimalarial activities of pregabalin and gabapentin in the murine malarial model.

METHODS

Acute toxicities were assessed using the method of Lorke, while curative activities were assessed by the administration of serial doses of pregabalin and gabapentin to Plasmodium berghei infected mice. Pregabalin was further investigated for its prophylactic activity, and curative potential when combined with either artesunate or amodiaquine. All drugs were freshly prepared and administered orally. Thin films were collected, stained, and observed under the microscope for the estimation of parasitemia and calculation of percentage chemoinhibition or chemoprevention. In pregabalin -artesunate or -amodiaquine combination aspect of this study, survival day post-infection (SDPI) was recorded, while parasitemia was re-estimated for animals that survived till day 28.

RESULTS

The oral LD50 of gabapentin, as well as pregabalin, was >5,000 mg/kg. Gabapentin at 100 and 200 mg/Kg demonstrated 35.64% and -12.78% chemoinhibition, respectively, while pregabalin demonstrated 75.60% and 100.00% chemoinhibition at doses of 12.5 and 25 mg/Kg, respectively. Moreover, pregabalin at individual doses of 25, 50 mg/Kg, and in combination with either artesunate or amodiaquine demonstrated 100.00% chemoinhibition. In its prophylactic study, pregabalin was found to be 100% chemopreventive at individual doses of 12.5 and 25 mg/Kg.

CONCLUSION

Both GABA analogs have antimalarial properties, but pregabalin proved to be more efficacious.

Gabapentinoids for treatment of alcohol use disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Gabapentin (GBP) and pregabalin (PGB) have been used to treat alcohol use disorder (AUD) and alcohol withdrawal, but with inconsistent results. In this meta-analysis, we explored the effects of GBP/PGB treatment on AUD and their effects on withdrawal, craving, depression, and sleep disturbance in AUD patients.

METHODS

We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of GBP/PGB on AUD with those of a placebo or control treatment. Electronic databases were searched for relevant articles published before September 2019. The primary outcome was defined as the efficacy measure on achieving abstinence or reducing alcohol consumption in a hierarchical order. We included 16 studies in our meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Overall, GBP had no significant benefit comparing to placebo or control treatment (Hedges' g = 0.0725, p = 0.6743). For specific alcohol-related outcome, GBP had significant effect on percentage of heavy drink (Hedges' g = 0.5478, p = 0.0441) and alcohol withdrawal symptoms (Hedges' g = 0.2475, p = 0.0425). GBP/PGB did not have significant beneficial effect on craving, depressive symptoms, or sleep disturbance. Instability was shown in sensitivity analyses of some above results.

CONCLUSIONS

GBP may be helpful to reduce AUD patients' heavy drinking behavior and withdrawal, but more studies are needed for drawing conclusions.

Pregabalin add-on for drug-resistant focal epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Epilepsy is a common neurological disease that affects approximately 1% of the UK population. Approximately one-third of these people continue to have seizures despite drug treatment. Pregabalin is one of the newer antiepileptic drugs which have been developed to improve outcomes.This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review published in Issue 3, 2014, and includes three new studies.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and tolerability of pregabalin when used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

SEARCH METHODS

For the latest update we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), on 5 July 2018, MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 5 July 2018), ClinicalTrials.gov (5 July 2018), and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP, 5 July 2018), and contacted Pfizer Ltd, manufacturer of pregabalin, to identify published, unpublished, and ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing pregabalin with placebo or an alternative antiepileptic drug as an add-on for people of any age with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. Double-blind and single-blind trials were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency; secondary outcomes were seizure freedom, treatment withdrawal for any reason, treatment withdrawal due to adverse effects, and proportion of individuals experiencing adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected and assessed trials for eligibility and extracted data. Analyses were by intention-to-treat. We presented results as risk ratios (RR) and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Two review authors assessed the included studies for risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine industry-sponsored randomised controlled trials (3327 participants) in the review. Seven trials compared pregabalin to placebo. For the primary outcome, participants randomised to pregabalin were significantly more likely to attain a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency compared to placebo (RR 2.28, 95% CI 1.52 to 3.42, 7 trials, 2193 participants, low-certainty evidence). The odds of response doubled with an increase in dose from 300 mg/day to 600 mg/day (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.74 to 2.28), indicating a dose-response relationship. Pregabalin was significantly associated with seizure freedom (RR 3.94, 95% CI 1.50 to 10.37, 4 trials, 1125 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Participants were significantly more likely to withdraw from pregabalin treatment than placebo for any reason (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.65, 7 trials, 2193 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) and for adverse effects (RR 2.65, 95% CI 1.88 to 3.74, 7 trials, 2193 participants, moderate-certainty evidence).Three trials compared pregabalin to three active-control drugs: lamotrigine, levetiracetam, and gabapentin. Participants allocated to pregabalin were significantly more likely to achieve a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency than those allocated to lamotrigine (RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.12, 1 trial, 293 participants) but not those allocated to levetiracetam (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.11, 1 trial, 509 participants) or gabapentin (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.12, 1 trial, 484 participants). We found no significant differences between pregabalin and lamotrigine (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.40 to 4.83) for seizure freedom, however, significantly fewer participants achieved seizure freedom with add-on pregabalin compared to levetiracetam (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.85). No data were reported for this outcome for pregabalin versus gabapentin. We found no significant differences between pregabalin and lamotrigine (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.52), levetiracetam (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.49), or gabapentin (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.07) for treatment withdrawal due to any reason or due to adverse effects (pregabalin versus lamotrigine: RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.48; versus levetiracetam: RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.54; versus gabapentin: RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.11). Ataxia, dizziness, somnolence, weight gain, and fatigue were significantly associated with pregabalin.We rated the overall risk of bias in the included studies as low or unclear due to the possibility of publication bias and lack of methodological details provided. We rated the certainty of the evidence as very low to moderate using the GRADE approach.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Pregabalin, when used as an add-on drug for treatment-resistant focal epilepsy, is significantly more effective than placebo at producing a 50% or greater seizure reduction and seizure freedom. Results demonstrated efficacy for doses from 150 mg/day to 600 mg/day, with increasing effectiveness at 600 mg doses, however issues with tolerability were noted at higher doses. The trials included in this review were of short duration, and longer-term trials are needed to inform clinical decision making.

A systematic survey shows that reporting and handling of missing outcome data in networks of interventions is poor

Background

To provide empirical evidence about prevalence, reporting and handling of missing outcome data in systematic reviews with network meta-analysis and acknowledgement of their impact on the conclusions.

Methods

We conducted a systematic survey including all published systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials comparing at least three interventions from January 1, 2009 until March 31, 2017.

Results

We retrieved 387 systematic reviews with network meta-analysis. Description of missing outcome data was available in 63 reviews. Intention-to-treat analysis was the most prevalent method (71%), followed by missing outcome data investigated as secondary outcome (e.g., acceptability) (40%). Bias due to missing outcome data was evaluated in half the reviews with explicit judgments in 18 (10%) reviews. Only 88 reviews interpreted their results acknowledging the implications of missing outcome data and mostly using the network meta-analysis results on missing outcome data as secondary outcome. We were unable to judge the actual strategy applied to deal with missing outcome data in 65% of the reviews due to insufficient information. Six percent of network meta-analyses were re-analyzed in sensitivity analysis considering missing outcome data, while 4% explicitly justified the strategy for dealing with missing outcome data.

Conclusions

The description and handling of missing outcome data as well as the acknowledgment of their implications for the conclusions from network meta-analysis are deemed underreported.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-018-0576-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Effects of Soluble Corn Fiber Alone or in Synbiotic Combination with Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG and the Pilus-Deficient Derivative GG-PB12 on Fecal Microbiota, Metabolism, and Markers of Immune Function: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Crossover Study in Healthy Elderly (Saimes Study)

Background

The aging process leads to a potential decline in immune function and adversely affects the gut microbiota. To date, many in vitro and in vivo studies focused on the application of synbiotics (prebiotics combined with probiotics) as a promising dietary approach to affect gut microbiota composition and improved functioning of the immune system. However, studies using synbiotic preparations often have the limitation that it remains unclear whether any effect observed is a result of the prebiotic or probiotic or a synergistic effect of the combined supplement.

Objectives

We investigated the effects of a probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG and pilus-deficient L. rhamnosus GG-PB12 combined with Promitor™ Soluble Corn Fiber (SCF, a candidate prebiotic) on fecal microbiota, metabolism, immunity, and blood lipids in healthy elderly persons. A prospective, double-blind, placebo controlled, randomized, single-centered, crossover study in 40 healthy elderly subjects (aged 60–80 years) was carried out. Volunteers were randomized to consume either probiotic and prebiotic as synbiotic, prebiotic or placebo (maltodextrin) during 3 weeks. Three-week washout periods separated all the treatments. We assessed effects upon blood lipids, glucose, cytokines, natural killer (NK) cell activity, phenotype, and intestinal microbiota composition. SCF decreased IL-6, which was not observed with the synbiotics.

Results

Consumption of L. rhamnosus GG combined with SCF increased NK cell activity compared to baseline in females and the older group. In the fecal microbiota analyses, the strongest community shifts were due to L. rhamnosus GG combined with SCF and SCF treatments. L. rhamnosus GG combined with SCF and L. rhamnosus GG-PB12 combined with SCF significantly increased the genus Parabacteroides. L. rhamnosus GG combined with SCF and SCF increased concentrations of Ruminococcaceae Incertae Sedis. Oscillospira and Desulfovibrio slightly decreased in the L. rhamnosus GG combined with SCF group, whereas Desulfovibrio decreased also in the L. rhamnosus GG-PB12 combined with SCF group. L. rhamnosus GG combined with SCF reduced total cholesterol and LDL-cholesterol in volunteers with initially elevated concentrations. C-reactive protein significantly decreased during L. rhamnosus GG-PB12 combined with SCF intervention compared to baseline.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the synbiotic combination of L. rhamnosus GG with SCF showed a tendency to promote innate immunity by increasing NK cell activity in elderly women and in 70 to 80-year-old volunteers and decreased TC and LDL-c in hypercholesterolemic patients. In addition, L. rhamnosus GG-PB12 combined with SCF demonstrated an increase in NK cell activity compared to SCF alone in older volunteers. We also found significant positive effects on the immune response, evidenced by a decrease of the pro-inflammatory cytokine IL-6. Therefore, dietary intervention with L. rhamnosus GG combined with SCF could be of importance in elderly as an attractive option for enhancement of both the microbial and immune systems.

Conversion of Pregabalin to 4-Isobutylpyrrolidone-2

Solid-state studies of C-butyl-resorcin[4]arene with pregabalin (Lyrica, Nervalin) in nitrobenzene yielded a cocrystal of C-butyl-resorcin[4]arene with 4-isobutylpyrrolidone-2. A combined experimental and quantum chemical investigation was implemented to further our understanding of the factors affecting the conversion process.

Alpha2delta ligands, gabapentin, pregabalin and mirogabalin: a review of their clinical pharmacology and therapeutic use

INTRODUCTION

The first two alpha₂delta ligands - gabapentin (GBP) and pregabalin (PGB) - were initially synthesized as antiepileptics; however, they were later also found to be useful for the treatment of additional conditions. Areas covered: Relevant publications describing potential underlying mechanisms, clinical pharmacokinetics/pharmacokinetics, and clinical efficacy and safety of these drugs in various disease conditions were searched in PubMed and Scopus and included in this review. Expert commentary: GBP and PGB are effective for the treatment neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia and epilepsy; in addition, they may be useful for the reduction of postoperative pain. PGB is also effective for the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder and GBP for the treatment of restless legs syndrome. GBP may be considered a treatment option for pain associated with Guillain-Barré Syndrome and phantom limb and for the management of uremic pruritus. Mirogabalin (MGB), recently developed, is being investigated for the treatment of peripheral neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia, showing promising results in patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Their most frequent adverse reactions are of neuropsychiatric nature and include fatigue, dizziness, sedation, somnolence, and ataxia; peripheral edema and weight gain are also frequently described. Pharmacokinetic interactions are scarce; however, pharmacodynamic interactions have been described in association with drugs with CNS-depressant effects.

Randomized trial of standard pain control with or without gabapentin for pain related to radiation-induced mucositis in head and neck cancer

OBJECTIVE

Radiation-induced mucositis (RIM) in chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for head and neck cancer (HNC) causes severe pain and worsens CRT compliance, QOL and outcome. Following retrospective reports, we conducted a randomized trial of the safety and efficacy of gabapentin for RIM-associated pain during CRT.

METHODS

HNC patients (pts) receiving CRT were randomized to standard pain control (SPC) with acetaminophen and opioids, or SPC plus gabapentin (SPC+G). Gabapentin was maintained at 900mg/day for 4 weeks after CRT. Primary endpoint was maximum visual analogue scale (VAS) score during CRT, and secondary endpoints were total opioid dose, changes in QOL (EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-HN 35) from baseline to 4 weeks after CRT, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Twenty-two eligible Stage III or IV pts were randomly assigned to SPC or SPC+G (n=11 each). Twelve were treated in a locally advanced setting and 10 in a postoperative setting. Median maximum VAS scores, median total dose of opioids at maximum VAS and total dose of opioids at 4 weeks after CRT tended to be higher in the SPC+G arm (47 in SPC vs. 74 in SPC+G, p=0.517; 215mg vs. 745.3mg, p=0.880; and 1260mg vs. 1537.5mg, p=0.9438, respectively), without significance. QOL analysis showed significantly worse scores in the SPC+G arm for weight gain (p=0.005). Adverse events related to gabapentin were manageable.

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot study is the first prospective randomized trial of gabapentin for RIM-related pain. Gabapentin had no apparent beneficial effect. Further research into agents for RIM-related pain is warranted.

Pharmacokinetic of antiepileptic drugs in patients with hepatic or renal impairment

Many factors influence choice of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), including efficacy of the drug for the indication (epilepsy, neuropathic pain, affective disorder, migraine), tolerability, and toxicity. The first-generation AEDs and some newer AEDs are predominately eliminated by hepatic metabolism. Other recent AEDs are eliminated by renal excretion of unchanged drug or a combination of hepatic metabolism and renal excretion. The effect of renal and hepatic disease on the dosing will depend on the fraction of the AED eliminated by hepatic and/or renal excretion, the metabolic isozymes involved, as well as the extent of protein binding, if therapeutic drug monitoring is used. For drugs that are eliminated by renal excretion, methods of estimating creatinine clearance can be used to determine dose adjustments. For drugs eliminated by hepatic metabolism, there are no specific markers of liver function that can be used to provide guidance in dosage adjustments. Based on studies with probe drugs, the hepatic metabolic enzymes are differentially affected depending on the cause and severity of hepatic disease, which can aid in predicting dose adjustment when clinical data are not available. Several AEDs are also associated with laboratory markers of mild hepatic dysfunction and, rarely, more severe hepatic injury. In contrast, the risk of renal injury from AEDs is generally low. In general, co-morbid hepatic or renal diseases influence the decision for the selection of an AED. For some patients dosing changes to their existing AEDs may be appropriate. For others, a change to another AED may be a better option.

Population model of longitudinal FEV1 data in asthmatics: meta-analysis and predictability of placebo response

Asthma is an obstructive lung disease where the mechanism of disease progression is not fully understood hence motivating the use of empirical models to describe the evolution of the patient's health state. With reference to placebo response, measured in terms of FEV1 (Forced Expiratory Volume in 1 s), a range of empirical models taken from the literature were compared at a single trial level. In particular, eleven GSK trials lasting 12 weeks in mild-to-moderate asthma were used for the modelling of longitudinal placebo responses. Then, the chosen exponential model was used to carry out an individual participant data meta-analysis on eleven trials. A covariate analysis was also performed to find relevant covariates in asthma to be accounted for in the meta-analysis model. Age, gender, and height were found statistically significant (e.g. the taller the patients the higher the FEV1, the older the patients the lower the FEV1, and females have lower FEV1). By truncating each trial at week 4, the predictive properties of the meta-analysis model were also investigated, showing its ability to predict long-term FEV1 response from truncated trials. Summarizing, the study suggests that: (i) the exponential model effectively describes the placebo response; (ii) the meta-analysis approach may prove helpful to simulate new trials as well as to reduce trial duration in view of its predictive properties; (iii) the inclusion of available covariates within the meta-analysis model provides a reduction of the inter-individual variability.

Face-to-face comparison of the predictive validity of two models of neuropathic pain in the rat: analgesic activity of pregabalin, tramadol and duloxetine

We compared the preclinical analgesic activity of three marketed drugs with different pharmacological properties, pregabalin, tramadol and duloxetine, described as effective against neuropathic pain in the clinic. These drugs were tested against evoked pain in two different neuropathic models in the rat, the Bennett (CCI) and the Chung (SNL) models. The selected endpoints were tactile allodynia, tactile hyperalgesia, heat hyperalgesia and cold allodynia. Although all three drugs displayed analgesic activity, the effects observed varied according to the behavioral evaluation. Pregabalin showed clear analgesic effects against cold allodynia and tactile hyperalgesia in both the CCI and Chung models. Tramadol was active against all four endpoints in the Chung model with similar effects in the CCI model, apart from tactile allodynia. Duloxetine inhibited tactile allodynia and heat hyperalgesia in both neuropathic pain models. It also displayed efficacy against tactile hyperalgesia in the CCI model and against cold allodynia in the Chung model. These data confirm that the CCI and the Chung models of neuropathic pain do not detect the activity of analgesics with the same sensitivity. Furthermore, the mode of stimulation (tactile or thermal) and the type of endpoint (allodynia or hyperalgesia) can further influence the observed efficacy of gold standards as well as novel compounds developed for treating neuropathic pain symptoms.

Pregabalin: latest safety evidence and clinical implications for the management of neuropathic pain

Used mainly for the management of neuropathic pain, pregabalin is a gabapentinoid or anticonvulsant that was initially developed as an antiepileptic agent. After more than a decade of experience with pregabalin, experience and studies have shown that the adverse effect profile of pregabalin is well tolerated for the management of neuropathic pain and other conditions. Its use is associated with benign central nervous system and systemic adverse effects, and there are very limited metabolic, idiosyncratic or known teratogenic adverse effects. Along with its efficacy in particular neuropathic pain conditions, pregabalin's safety led it to be one of the first pharmacotherapies considered for the management of neuropathic pain. This review discusses the use of pregabalin as well as its potential adverse effects, including the most commonly noted features of sedation, dizziness, peripheral edema and dry mouth. Although other adverse effects may occur, these appear to be uncommon. The review also discusses the clinical implications of pregabalin's use for the clinician.

Effects of pregabalin on smoking behavior, withdrawal symptoms, and cognitive performance in smokers

RATIONALE

In preclinical and clinical studies, medications enhancing the GABA neurotransmission attenuate nicotine reward. Pregabalin, a GABA analogue, presumably interacts with brain glutamate and GABA neurotransmission. The goal of this study was to determine pregabalin's effects on smoking behavior, nicotine withdrawal, craving for cigarettes, and cognitive performance.

METHODS

Twenty-four smokers participated in an outpatient double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study. Subjects had a 4-day treatment period with either pregabalin (300 mg/day) or placebo and following a washout period were then crossed over for 4 days to the other treatment. In each treatment period, starting at midnight of day 1, participants were asked to stop smoking until the experimental session on day 4. During the experimental session measures of ad lib smoking behavior, tobacco withdrawal, craving for cigarettes, and cognitive performance were obtained.

RESULTS

Pregabalin treatment, compared to placebo, did not reduce the smoking behavior during the first 3 days of treatment or during ad lib smoking period. Pregabalin treatment attenuated some tobacco withdrawal symptoms including ratings of anxious, irritable, and frustrated in abstinent smokers. Pregabalin treatment also attenuated the subjective ratings of "liking" in response to smoking. Under pregabalin treatment, smokers made more errors in a sustained attention task.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings provide limited support for pregabalin as a treatment for nicotine addiction.

Placebo effect model in asthma clinical studies: longitudinal meta-analysis of forced expiratory volume in 1 second

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to describe the time course of the placebo effect in asthma and quantitatively investigate the affective factors of the placebo effect for the placebo response simulation during the asthma clinical study design.

METHODS

We conducted a systemic search of public data sources for the study-level forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) to build the placebo effect model for studies by oral or inhaled administrations simultaneously. The administration routes, types of inhalation device, mean patient age, mean male proportion, baseline FEV(1), disease severity, year of publication, inhaled corticosteroid status during the treatment, and dropout rate were tested as covariates.

RESULTS

There are 34 literature sources containing 178 mean values for FEV(1) presenting the individual observations from about 3,703 patients. The exponential models adequately described the time course of placebo effect with the typical value of the maximum placebo effect (P(max)) of 0.060 L. Dropout rate incorporated in the residual error model and the disease severity (mild to moderate and moderate to severe) at baseline were covariates that remained in the final model.

CONCLUSIONS

The placebo effect is adequately described by an exponential model over time. By incorporating the dropout rate in the residual error model, the estimation precision was improved. The model could predict the placebo response profile in mild to severe asthmatic patients for the asthma clinical study design and could also be a structure model of the placebo effect for the pure drug effect evaluation in the asthma clinical trials.

Gabapentin: An update of its pharmacological properties and therapeutic use in epilepsy

The new antiepileptic medications are prescribed for the treatment of patients with seizure disorders since 17 years ago. Gabapentin (GBP) was approved on January 1994 as adjunctive treatment in patients 12 years or older with partial seizures, with or devoid of secondary generalization. GBP, was formerly known as an anticonvulsant γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) mimetic, is considered as a safe and well-tolerated antiepileptic drug (AED) with promising pharmacokinetic properties and a wide therapeutic index. GBP is useful for the therapy of mixed seizure disorders and refractory partial seizures in children. GBP must be regarded as the first treatment for older patients with recently diagnosed seizures. GBP has a well recognized clinical efficacy in those types of focal epilepsy which were resistant to the traditional AEDs. The main object of this review was to evaluate the efficacy, tolerability, dosing schedules and safety of GBP that have been investigated in peer-reviewed journals.