Pregabalin versus gabapentin in the management of peripheral neuropathic pain associated with post-herpetic neuralgia and diabetic neuropathy: a cost effectiveness analysis for the Greek healthcare setting

Does a Standard Cost-Effectiveness Threshold Exist? The Case of Greece

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to systematically review the use of cost-effectiveness (CE) threshold for evaluating pharmacological interventions in Greece.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed and ScienceDirect was conducted between January 2009 and June 2022. The data of selected studies were extracted using a relevant form and consequently were synthesized. Qualitative variables were presented with relative frequencies (%) and quantitative variables with median and interquartile range (IQR).

RESULTS

From the 302 identified studies, 83 satisfied the inclusion criteria. Studies were categorized to oncology (26.5%) and a nononcology related (73.5%) based on drug treatment. The most frequently reported outcome associated with CE threshold was the "per quality-adjusted life-year gained." A total of 32.5% of the studies with a reported threshold did not specify the origin of the threshold. From the rest of studies, the vast majority (92.8%) adopted thresholds equal to 1 to 3 times the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, whereas the rest similar to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines. The median CE threshold was differentiated between oncology (€51 000 [IQR €50 000-€60 000]) and nononcology studies (€34 000 [IQR €30 000-€36 000]; P < .001). In both type of studies, the median CE thresholds were not statistically significantly different among GDP, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and not specified approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

Aligned with other countries where there is no standard CE threshold to promote efficient use of healthcare resources, the most prominent practice in Greece was found to be that of 1 to 3 times the GDP per capita irrespective of type of treatment or outcome studied.

Does gabapentin provide benefit for patients with knee OA? A benefit-harm and cost-effectiveness analysis

OBJECTIVE

Gabapentin can treat neuropathic pain syndromes and has increasingly been prescribed to treat nociplastic pain. Some patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) suffer from both nociceptive and nociplastic pain. We examined the cost-effectiveness of adding gabapentin to knee OA care.

METHOD

We used the Osteoarthritis Policy Model, a validated Monte Carlo simulation of knee OA, to examine the value of gabapentin in treating knee OA by comparing three strategies: 1) usual care, gabapentin sparing (UC-GS); 2) targeted gabapentin (TG), which provides gabapentin plus usual care for those who screen positive for nociplastic pain on the modified PainDETECT questionnaire (mPD-Q) and usual care only for those who screen negative; and 3) universal gabapentin plus usual care (UG). Outcomes included cumulative quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), lifetime direct medical costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), discounted at 3% annually. We derived model inputs from published literature and national databases and varied key input parameters in sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

UC-GS dominated both gabapentin-containing strategies, as it led to lower costs and more QALYs. TG resulted in a cost increase of $689 and a cumulative QALY reduction of 0.012 QALYs. UG resulted in a further $1,868 cost increase and 0.036 QALY decrease. The results were robust to plausible changes in input parameters. The lowest TG strategy ICER of $53,000/QALY was reported when mPD-Q specificity was increased to 100% and AE rate was reduced to 0%.

CONCLUSION

Incorporating gabapentin into care for patients with knee OA does not appear to offer good value.

A pharmacoeconomic evaluation of the pharmacotherapeutic options for painful diabetic neuropathy

INTRODUCTION

Painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) is a high incidence and severe complication of diabetes mellitus, significantly compromising patients' quality of life and causing tremendous economic burden. Considering drug costs becomes part of treatment decisions, with the growing choice of monotherapy or combination treatment strategies for PDN treatment.

AREAS COVERED

This systematic review aims to identify the cost-effectiveness of pharmacotherapies in PDN, summarize key findings, and assess the quality of studies to inform healthcare resource allocation decisions and future research. Economic evaluations were identified by searching PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and health technology assessment (HTA) databases, as well as screening reference lists of previously identified studies. Relevant data was extracted, and the CHEERS checklist was used to assess the quality of the studies.

EXPERT OPINION

Collectively, the findings indicate that more pharmacoeconomics research is urgently needed to directly compare high-quality research for PDN combination medication/sequential treatment, and which is performed from a societal perspective. Simultaneously, to strengthen the reliability of the analysis, metrics such as adherence, incidence of adverse drug reactions, and pain levels utility value should be examined to verify the robustness of the basic results.

Gabapentin versus Pregabalin for management of chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy

INTRODUCTION

Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) is a chronic autoimmune demyelinating peripheral neuropathy that leads to symmetrical muscular weakness, sensory deficit, hyporeflexia, chronic fatigue, and impaired quality of life (QoL). The current study aims to investigate the effects of gabapentin versus pregabalin on pain, sleep disturbances, and QoL in CIDP patients.

METHODS

This clinical trial was conducted on 40 patients diagnosed with CIDP randomly allocated to treatment with 100-500 mg gabapentin (n=20) or 50-300 mg pregabalin (n=20) both co-medicated with 37.5 mg venlafaxine. The dose of gabapentin/pregabalin was adjusted based on the patient's tolerability/response to the treatment. Visual analogue scale (VAS), Pittsburg Sleep Quality Questionnaire and Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) were filled at baseline, within three, six, nine and 12 months after the interventions to assess pain severity, sleep quality and QoL, respectively. The Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (IRCT) code: IRCT20200217046523N16, https://fa.irct.ir/search/result?query=IRCT20200217046523N16.

RESULTS

Gabapentin revealed a dose-dependent efficacy in pain severity (P-value =0.004, r=0.287), sleep quality (P-value <0.001, r=0.387) and QoL (P-value =0.001, r=-0.378), but pregabalin (P-value >0.05). Co-medication of gabapentin plus venlafaxine could significantly improve sleep quality (P-value =0.009) and QoL (P-value =0.004), but pain severity (P-value =0.796). Pregabalin plus venlafaxine showed statistically significant improvement in pain (P-value =0.046), sleep quality (P-value <0.001) and QoL (P-value <0.001). The comparison of the two medications revealed the superiority of pregabalin in pain relief (P-value >0.001) and QoL (P-value =0.03) to pregabalin.

CONCLUSION

Based on this study, the co-medication of pregabalin and venlafaxine led to remarkable superior outcomes compared to venlafaxine plus gabapentin in the management of pain, sleep quality, and QoL due to CIDP.

The Greek Neuropathic Pain Registry: The structure and objectives of the sole NPR in Greece

OBJECTIVES

Neuropathic pain (NP) is a complex condition that impairs the patients' quality of life. Registries are useful tools, increasingly used as they provide high-quality data. This article aims to describe the Greek Neuropathic Pain Registry (Gr.NP.R.) design, the patients' baseline data, and real-world treatment outcomes.

METHODS

The Gr.NP.R. collects electronically, stores, and shares real-world clinical data from Pain and Palliative Care centers in Greece. It is a web-based application, which ensures security, simplicity, and transparency. VAS, DN4, and Pain Detect were used for pain and NP assessment.

RESULTS

From 2016 to 2020, 5980 patients with chronic pain, of cancer or non-cancer origin, were examined and 2334 fulfilled the NP inclusion criteria (VAS > 5, DN4 > 4, and Pain Detect ≥ 19). At the first visit, the mean age was 64.8 years, 65.5% were female patients, and 97.9% were Greek. The mean (SD) time from pain initiation to visiting the pain clinics was 1.5 (3.8) years. Most patients were undertreated. Following the patients' registration, the national guidelines were implemented. The majority of the prescribed medications were gabapentinoids (70.2%), especially pregabalin (62.6%), and opioids (tramadol, 55.3%). At visits 1 and 6, mean VAS was 7.1 and 5, and mean DN4 score was 5.6 and 3.5, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The Gr.NP.R. provides information on the demographics, clinical progress, treatment history, treatment responses, and the drugs of choice for patients with cancer and non-cancer NP. The collected data may help physicians plan the management of their patients.

Sigma-1 receptor antagonist (BD-1063) potentiates the antinociceptive effect of quercetin in neuropathic pain induced by chronic constriction injury

Neuropathic pain is characterized by the presence of hyperalgesia and allodynia. Pharmacological treatments include the use of antiepileptics such as pregabalin or gabapentin, as well as antidepressants; however, given the role of the sigma-1 receptor in the generation and maintenance of pain, it has been suggested that sigma-1 receptor antagonists may be effective. There are also other alternatives that have been explored, such as the use of flavonoids such as quercetin. Due to the relevance of drug combinations in therapeutics, the objective of this work was to evaluate the effect of the combination of BD-1063 with quercetin in a chronic sciatic nerve constriction model using the "Surface of Synergistic Interaction" analysis method. The combination had preferable additive or synergistic effects, with BD-1063 (17.8 mg/kg) + QUER (5.6 mg/kg) showing the best antinociceptive effects. The required doses were also lower than those used individually to obtain the same level of effect. Our results provide the first evidence that the combination of a sigma-1 receptor antagonist and the flavonoid quercetin may be useful in the treatment of nociceptive behaviors associated with neuropathic pain, suggesting a new therapeutic alternative for this type of pain.

Relief of Neuropathic Pain Through Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Inhibition: A Randomized Proof-of-Concept Trial

OBJECTIVE

Case reports and a case series have described relief of neuropathic pain (NP) after treatment with epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (EGFR-Is). These observations are supported by preclinical findings. The aim of this trial was to explore a potential clinical signal supporting the therapeutic efficacy of EGFR-Is in NP.

METHODS

In a proof-of-concept trial using a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled design, 14 patients with severe, chronic, therapy-resistant NP due to compressed peripheral nerves or complex regional pain syndrome were randomized to receive a single infusion of the EGFR-I cetuximab and placebo in crossover design, followed by a single open-label cetuximab infusion.

RESULTS

The mean reduction in daily average pain scores three to seven days after single-blinded cetuximab infusion was 1.73 points (90% confidence interval [CI] = 0.80 to 2.66), conferring a 1.22-point greater reduction than placebo (90% CI = -0.10 to 2.54). Exploratory analyses suggested that pain reduction might be greater in the 14 days after treatment with blinded cetuximab than after placebo. The proportion of patients who reported ≥50% reduction in average pain three to seven days after cetuximab was 36% (14% after placebo), and comparison of overall pain reduction suggests a trend in favor of cetuximab. Skin rash (grade 1-2) was the most frequent side effect (12/14, 86%).

CONCLUSIONS

This small proof-of-concept evaluation of an EGFR-I against NP did not provide statistical evidence of efficacy. However, substantial reductions in pain were reported, and confidence intervals do not rule out a clinically meaningful treatment effect. Evaluation of EGFR-I against NP therefore warrants further investigation.

Cost-Effectiveness of Treatment Options for Neuropathic Pain: a Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Neuropathic pain significantly reduces an individual's quality of life and places a significant economic burden on society. As such, many cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) have been published for treatments available for neuropathic pain.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this systematic review was to provide a detailed summary of the estimates of cost-effectiveness from published CEAs comparing available treatments for neuropathic pain. The secondary objectives were to identify the key drivers of cost-effectiveness and to assess the quality of published CEAs in neuropathic pain.

METHODS

We searched Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL and seven other databases to identify CEAs reporting the costs, health benefits (e.g., quality-adjusted life-years or disability-adjusted life-years) and summary statistics, such as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, of treatments for neuropathic pain. We excluded studies reporting diseases other than neuropathic pain, those for which the full text was not available (e.g., conference abstracts), studies not written in English or not published in peer-reviewed journals, and narrative reviews, editorials and opinion papers. Titles and abstract reviews, full-text reviews, and data extraction were all performed by two independent reviewers, with disagreement resolved by a third reviewer. Mean costs, health benefits, and summary statistics were reported and qualitatively compared across studies, stratified by time horizon. Drivers of cost-effectiveness were assessed using reported one-way sensitivity analyses. The quality of all included studies was evaluated using the Tufts CEA Registry Quality Score and study reporting using the CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) checklist.

RESULTS

A total of 22 studies were identified and included in this systematic review. Included studies were heterogeneous in the treatments compared, methodology and design, perspectives, and time horizons considered, making cross-study comparisons difficult. No single treatment was consistently the most cost-effective across all studies, but tricyclic antidepressants were the preferred treatment at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $US50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year in several studies with a short time horizon and a US payer perspective. Among the 14 studies reporting one-way sensitivity analyses, drivers of cost-effectiveness included utility values for health states and the likelihood of pain relief with treatment. The quality of the identified CEAs was moderate to high, and overall reporting largely met CHEERS recommendations.

LIMITATIONS

To assess drivers of cost-effectiveness and quality, we only included studies with the full text available and thus excluded some CEAs that reported cost-effectiveness results. The heterogeneity of the included studies meant that the study results could not be synthesized and comparison across studies was limited.

CONCLUSIONS

Though many pulished studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of treatments for neuropathic pain, significant heterogeneity between CEAs prevented synthesis of the results. Standardized methodology and improved reporting would allow for more reliable comparisons across studies.

Pharmacoeconomic Analysis of Antiepileptic Reimbursement for Neuropathic Pain in Bosnia and Herzegovina - Budget Impact Analysis of Pregabalin

Introduction:

Neuropathic pain resulting from injury to the nervous system. Up to 7% to 8% of the European population is affected. A number of different treatments for neuropathic pain have been studied including antiepileptic. Pregabalin and gabapentin are often considered first-line treatments. Pregabalin provides equivalent efficacy to gabapentin, showing greater potency at much lower doses and is considered as cost-effective intervention. In Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (FB&H), gabapentin is fully reimbursed, while pregabalin is enlisted on list B with copayment.

Aim:

To develop simple budget impact (BI) model and assess BI of introducing pregabalin into full reimbursement in FB&H.

Material and methods:

Budget impact model was developed using Microsoft Excel 2010. Local epidemiology data and data on drug consumption from government reports in 2016 were used. Two scenarios with three-year time horizon have been developed: 1) without and 2) with pregabalin reimbursed at the same level as gabapentin. Two developed scenarios have been compared from health insurance fund (HIF) perspective.

Results:

In scenario 1 consider both drugs fully reimbursement and without patient switch among alternatives the total cost would be increased for 780,025 KM; 852,027 KM and 943,830 KM over a 3-year period. In scenario 2 considering both drugs fully reimbursed but with patient switch topregabalin total annual cost would be increased for 732,241 KM; 742,395 KM and 751,761 KM. Comparing scenario 1 and 2 it is found that scenario 2 is more favorable from HIF perspective.

Conclusion:

Implementation of pharmacoeconomic principles in reimbursement decisions in Bosnia and Herzegovina would improve access to medicines and contribute rationale resource consumption.

Cost of treating peripheral neuropathic pain with pregabalin or gabapentin at therapeutic doses in routine practice

AIM

To analyze the cost of peripheral neuropathic pain (PNP) treatment with pregabalin or gabapentin at therapeutic doses in routine clinical practice.

METHODS

Analysis of a retrospective, observational study of electronic medical records of patients treated for PNP with therapeutic doses of pregabalin or gabapentin, with 2 years' follow-up, considering PNP type, comorbidities, concomitant analgesia and resource use.

RESULTS

The weighted total average cost/patient was lower for pregabalin than gabapentin (€2464 [2197-2730] vs €3142 [2670-3614]; p = 0.014) due to significantly lower both healthcare and non-healthcare costs. This is explained by a significantly lower use of concomitant analgesia, fewer primary care visits and fewer days of sick leave.

CONCLUSION

At therapeutic doses, pregabalin was found to have lower healthcare and non-healthcare costs than gabapentin in routine practice.

Neuropathic pain: a narrative review of etiology, assessment, diagnosis, and treatment for primary care providers

BACKGROUND

Neuropathic pain (NeP) is a distinct type of chronic pain that is a direct result of damage to the nervous system itself. Studies have shown that training on the topic of chronic pain in medical schools is lacking and many practitioners are not confident in their ability to effectively manage patients with such pain.

AIMS

The purpose of this narrative review is to provide a brief high-level overview of NeP for primary healthcare providers that includes a discussion of mechanisms, prevalence, burden, assessment, and treatment. The information provided here should help primary care providers better understand this type of chronic pain.

Cost of treatment of peripheral neuropathic pain with pregabalin or gabapentin in routine clinical practice: impact of their loss of exclusivity

To analyze the effect of loss of exclusivity of data on the cost of treatment of peripheral neuropathic pain (PNP) with pregabalin or gabapentin in routine clinical practice. A retrospective observational study, with electronic medical records for patients enrolled at primary care centers managed by the health care provider Badalona Serveis Assistencials, who initiated treatment of PNP with pregabalin or gabapentin. The analysis used drugs and resources prices for year 2015. The 1163 electronic medical records (pregabalin; N = 764, gabapentin; N = 399) for patients (62.2% women) with a mean (standard deviation) age of 59.2 (14.7) years were analyzed. Treatment duration was slightly shorter with pregabalin than with gabapentin (5.2 vs 5.5 months; P = 0.124), with mean doses of 227.4 (178.6) mg and 900.0 (443.4) mg, respectively. The average study drug cost per patient was higher for pregabalin than for gabapentin; €214.6 (206.3) vs €157.4 (181.9), P < 0.001, although the cost of concomitant analgesic medication was lower; €176.5 (271.8) vs €306.7 (529.2), P < 0.001. The adjusted average total cost per patient was lower in those treated with pregabalin than in those treated with gabapentin; €2,413 (2119-2708) vs €3201 (2806-3.597); P = 0.002, owing to significantly lower health care costs; €1307 (1247-1367) vs €1538 (1458-1618), P < 0.001, and also non-health care costs; €1106 (819-1393) vs €1663 (1279-2048), P = 0.023, that was caused by a significantly lower use of concomitant medication, fewer medical visits to primary care, and fewer days of sick leave. After loss of exclusivity of both drugs, pregabalin continued to show lower health care and non-health care costs than gabapentin in the treatment of PNP in routine clinical practice.

A systematic review of cost-effectiveness modeling of pharmaceutical therapies in neuropathic pain: variation in practice, key challenges, and recommendations for the future

OBJECTIVES

Complexities in the neuropathic-pain care pathway make the condition difficult to manage and difficult to capture in cost-effectiveness models. The aim of this study is to understand, through a systematic review of previous cost-effectiveness studies, some of the key strengths and limitations in data and modeling practices in neuropathic pain. Thus, the aim is to guide future research and practice to improve resource allocation decisions and encourage continued investment to find novel and effective treatments for patients with neuropathic pain.

METHODS

The search strategy was designed to identify peer-reviewed cost-effectiveness evaluations of non-surgical, pharmaceutical therapies for neuropathic pain published since January 2000, accessing five key databases. All identified publications were reviewed and screened according to pre-defined eligibility criteria. Data extraction was designed to reflect key data challenges and approaches to modeling in neuropathic pain and based on published guidelines.

RESULTS

The search strategy identified 20 cost-effectiveness analyses meeting the inclusion criteria, of which 14 had original model structures. Cost-effectiveness modeling in neuropathic pain is established and increasing across multiple jurisdictions; however, amongst these studies, there is substantial variation in modeling approach, and there are common limitations. Capturing the effect of treatments upon health outcomes, particularly health-related quality-of-life, is challenging, and the health effects of multiple lines of ineffective treatment, common for patients with neuropathic pain, have not been consistently or robustly modeled.

CONCLUSIONS

To improve future economic modeling in neuropathic pain, further research is suggested into the effect of multiple lines of treatment and treatment failure upon patient outcomes and subsequent treatment effectiveness; the impact of treatment-emergent adverse events upon patient outcomes; and consistent and appropriate pain measures to inform models. The authors further encourage transparent reporting of inputs used to inform cost-effectiveness models, with robust, comprehensive and clear uncertainty analysis and, where feasible, open-source modeling is encouraged.

Can Chronic Pain Patients Be Adequately Treated Using Generic Pain Medications to the Exclusion of Brand-Name Ones?

According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reports, approximately 8 in 10 prescriptions filled in the United States are for generic medications, with an expectation that this number will increase over the next few years. The impetus for this emphasis on generics is the cost disparity between them and brand-name products. The use of FDA-approved generic drugs saved 158 billion dollars in 2010 alone. In the current health care climate, there is continually increasing pressure for prescribers to write for generic alternative medications, occasionally at the expense of best clinical practices. This creates a conflict wherein both physicians and patients may find brand-name medications clinically superior but nevertheless choose generic ones. The issue of generic versus brand medications is a key component of the discussion of health payers, physicians and their patients. This review evaluates some of the important medications in the armamentarium of pain physicians that are frequently used in the management of chronic pain, and that are currently at the forefront of this issue, including Opana (oxymorphone; Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Malvern, PA), Gralise (gabapentin; Depomed, Newark, CA), and Horizant (gabapentin enacarbil; XenoPort, Santa Clara, CA) that are each available in generic forms as well. We also discuss the use of Lyrica (pregabalin; Pfizer, New York, NY), which is currently unavailable as generic medication, and Cymbalta (duloxetine; Eli Lilly, Indianapolis, IN), which has been recently FDA approved to be available in a generic form. It is clear that the use of generic medications results in large financial savings for the cost of prescriptions on a national scale. However, cost-analysis is only part of the equation when treating chronic pain patients and undervalues the relationships of enhanced compliance due to single-daily dosing and stable and reliable pharmacokinetics associated with extended-duration preparations using either retentive technologies or delayed absorption strategies. Medications given to chronic pain patients should be individualized to best serve analgesic needs and assure patient safety primarily, based on high levels of scientific and economic evidence. Decisions regarding utilization should not be made based solely on limited or faulty assessments of cost-benefit analyses.

Long-term cost-effectiveness of initiating treatment for painful diabetic neuropathy with pregabalin, duloxetine, gabapentin, or desipramine

Painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) affects nearly half of patients with diabetes. The objective of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of starting patients with PDN on pregabalin (PRE), duloxetine (DUL), gabapentin (GABA), or desipramine (DES) over a 10-year time horizon from the perspective of third-party payers in the United States. A Markov model was used to compare the costs (2013 $US) and effectiveness (quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) of first-line PDN treatments in 10,000 patients using microsimulation. Costs and QALYs were discounted at 3% annually. Probabilities and utilities were derived from the published literature. Costs were average wholesale price for drugs and national estimates for office visits and hospitalizations. One-way and probabilistic (PSA) sensitivity analyses were used to examine parameter uncertainty. Starting with PRE was dominated by DUL as DUL cost less and was more effective. Starting with GABA was extendedly dominated by a combination of DES and DUL. DES and DUL cost $23,468 and $25,979, while yielding 3.05 and 3.16 QALYs, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for DUL compared with DES was $22,867/QALY gained. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the model was most sensitive to the adherence threshold and utility for mild pain. PSA showed that, at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $50,000/QALY, DUL was the most cost-effective option in 56.3% of the simulations, DES in 29.2%, GABA in 14.4%, and PRE in 0.1%. Starting with DUL is the most cost-effective option for PDN when WTP is greater than $22,867/QALY. Decision makers may consider starting with DUL for PDN patients.

The Economic Impact of Opioid Use in the Management of Chronic Nonmalignant Pain

Chronic nonmalignant pain (CNMP), defined as persistent pain that is not attributable to a potentially life-limiting condition and has a duration of at least 3 months, is widespread in the United States. Moderate-to-severe CNMP often is treated with opioid analgesics, and there is ongoing debate regarding appropriate allocation of opioids to treat CNMP because long-term treatment can result in problematic side effects, drug misuse, or abuse leading to detrimental medical, social, and economic consequences. Furthermore, therapeutic strategies arising from concerns about the misuse of opioids may impede the treatment of patients who require strong analgesics for adequate pain relief. While current CNMP management includes nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic approaches, including acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and opioids, there is debate regarding the risk-benefit profile of opioids for chronic pain treatment. Mitigation of opioid misuse and abuse and proper administration of opioid analgesics must be balanced against providing appropriate analgesia. To accomplish this, managed care policies could implement guidelines that focus on evaluating risk characteristics for opioid misuse and abuse, use opioid dose-sparing strategies, and encourage the use of alternative analgesics or nonpharmacologic therapy when appropriate. The purpose of this review is to examine challenges and costs associated with CNMP management using opioids and to summarize alternative therapeutic approaches.

Can pregabalin prevent paclitaxel-associated neuropathy?--An ACCRU pilot trial

PURPOSE

Paclitaxel can cause an acute pain syndrome (P-APS), considered to be an acute form of neuropathy and chronic chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN). Anecdotal reports suggested that gabapentin may be helpful in the prevention of these toxicities. The purpose of this pilot study was to obtain data to support or refute the utility of pregabalin for the prevention of P-APS and CIPN.

METHODS

Patients scheduled to receive weekly paclitaxel (80 mg/m(2)/dose) were randomized 1:1 to receive pregabalin 75 mg or a placebo, twice daily, during the 12 weeks of chemotherapy. Patients completed the European Organization of Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life (EORTC QLQ) CIPN20 questionnaire at baseline, prior to each dose of paclitaxel and monthly for 6 months post-treatment. Patients completed a post-paclitaxel questionnaire for 6 days after each dose of paclitaxel and an acute pain syndrome symptom questionnaire on day 8. The primary end point was to determine the effect of pregabalin on the maximum of the worst acute pain scores for the week following paclitaxel administration for cycle 1.

RESULTS

Forty-six patients were randomly assigned to the treatment or placebo arm. There was no suggestion of a difference between the two study arms with regard to P-APS measures. While there was a suggestion that pregabalin decreased numbness, there was no suggestion that it decreased tingling, pain, or the EORTC QLQ-CIPN20 subscale scores. There were no evident toxicity differences between the two study arms.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this pilot trial do not support that pregabalin is helpful for preventing P-APS or paclitaxel-associated CIPN.