Gabapentin for Pain in Pediatric Palliative Care

OBJECTIVE

Gabapentin is commonly used to treat pain in children receiving pediatric palliative care. This study describes the real-world use of gabapentin and the associated benefits and adverse effects/events (AEs).

METHODS

A prospective, multicenter cohort of standardized data collection after a clinical decision was made to use gabapentin for managing neuropathic or nociplastic pain in children attended on by a pediatric palliative care service. It was conducted across 11 sites in seven countries including hospital, inpatient, and outpatient services. Clinical outcomes were graded using pain scales validated for age and cognitive ability and the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCICTCAE) at baseline, 14 days, 28 days, six weeks and 12 weeks after initiation of gabapentin. Ad-hoc safety reporting continued throughout the study.

RESULTS

Data were collected from 127 children with a median age of 4.7 years (IQR 0.1-17.9); 61% had a neurological disorder, 21% advanced cancer and the cohort had a high level of disability (Lansky/Karnofsky performance score 37.1). Gabapentin was prescribed at standard pediatric doses. On average, 76% of children had a reduction in pain and 42% experienced a potential AE. The mean pain score decreased from 6.0 (SD 2.6) at baseline to 3.3 (SD 2.4) at 14 days and 1.8 (SD 1.8) after 12-weeks of gabapentin therapy. Ten percent had increased pain at each time point. AEs did not increase when individual changes over time were accounted for except for somnolence (7%). Serious AEs attributable to gabapentin were possible or probable in 3% of children.

CONCLUSIONS

Gabapentin prescribed at standard doses for advanced cancer and severe neurological injury in children under a pediatric palliative care service was associated with generally improved pain intensity at previously described levels of adverse effects.

Gabapentin and oral antidepressants for chronic pruritus: a prospective cohort study evaluating efficacy and side effects in daily dermatological practice

BACKGROUND

Chronic pruritus is frequently seen in daily dermatological practice and is associated with marked impact on quality of life. Research on the use of gabapentin and oral antidepressants in daily dermatological practice is scarce.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of gabapentin and oral antidepressants in patients with chronic pruritus in daily clinical practice.

METHODS

A prospective observational single-center cohort study was conducted including adult patients with chronic pruritus and an indication for systemic treatment between June 2016 and May 2019.

RESULTS

Systemic treatment with gabapentin and/or antidepressants was initiated in 31 patients with severe chronic pruritus (median average pruritus NRS score 7.0), in which most cases no underlying origin was identified (83.9%). In patients treated with gabapentin 900-1800 mg/day (N = 25), median average pruritus NRS decreased to 5.5 (IQR 3.0) after 4 weeks and remained stable up to 24 weeks of treatment. Efficacy of antidepressants was variable, with the highest response after initiation of amitriptyline, nortriptyline, and mirtazapine. Side effects were frequently observed in both gabapentin and antidepressant treatments; however, were mostly mild and temporary.

LIMITATIONS

This was a single-site observational study, with limited sample size.

CONCLUSION

Treatment with gabapentin and antidepressants should be considered in patients with chronic pruritus unresponsive to conventional treatment.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

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

Abuse and addiction in gabapentinoid drug users for neuropathic pain

OBJECTIVE

Gabapentinoids are gamma-aminobutyric acid analogue agents used in the treatment of neuropathic pain. They are increasingly being abused to achieve euphoric and dissociative effects. This study aimed to determine drug misuse/abuse and related factors in patients who used gabapentinoids for neuropathic pain.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This study included 140 patients over the age of 18. Patients were excluded from the study if they had aphasia, dementia, or diseases that led to aphasia or cooperative and cognitive dysfunction. They were also excluded if they lacked sufficient information about how long or at what dosage they had been using the drug. The Beck Depression Inventory and Beck Anxiety Inventory were used to evaluate depression and anxiety states. The patients' levels of drug abuse were determined according to the definitions provided in the terminology for misuse, abuse, and related events.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 56.78 ± 14.45 years, and 52.1% of them were females. While 57.9% of the patients used pregabalin, 42.1% of the patients used gabapentin. For the median (min-max) of the dataset, the pregabalin dose was 300 (50-600) mg/day, and the gabapentin dose was 900 (300-2,400) mg/day. Abuse was present in 17.9% of the patients. Risk factors for gabapentinoid abuse were smoking, alcohol, and antidepressant use, anxiety and depression, living alone, and drug dose and duration of use.

CONCLUSIONS

Before prescribing drugs and managing the treatment process in a controlled manner, questioning patients about their risk factors can reduce the rate of abuse.

Gabapentinoids and Acetaminophen as Adjuvants for Managing Postoperative Pain

With the current opiate epidemic in the United States, there is renewed interest in evaluating non-opiate adjuvant medications as effective alternatives for the prevention and treatment of postoperative pain. A systematic review of randomized, controlled trials on Pub Med, Medline, and Embase was conducted looking on postoperative pain management from 2008 to 2018. Studies were included if they used a gabapentenoid with or without acetaminophen and evaluated supplemental opiate use. All adult (18 years or older) surgical populations were considered for inclusion, and fourteen clinical trials met inclusion criteria. Gabapentenoid dosing varied among studies. In nine of fourteen studies, there was a finding of superiority as compared to placebo in managing postoperative pain and decreasing supplemental opiate use. Pregabalin was used in twelve of the fourteen studies and gabapentin was used in two of the fourteen studies. Of the nine studies that found a benefit from using a gabapentoid, all included pregabalin. While the rate of adverse effects was low in all studies, it was found to increase as dosages increased. Results support that pregabalin has a role in decreasing postoperative pain intensity and supplemental opiate use; however, the optimal dose or dosing regimen is not yet well understood.

Is gabapentin a safe and effective treatment for nonneuropathic pain?

ABSTRACT

A review of the recent literature found that compared with placebo or other pain medications, gabapentin did not significantly reduce nonneuropathic pain. The drug also is associated with an increased risk of adverse reactions, including somnolence, dizziness, and nausea. Given the lack of efficacy and risk of adverse reactions, gabapentin should not be used for nonneuropathic pain.

[Hepatotoxicity probably associated with gabapentin]

BACKGROUND

Gabapentin is an anticonvulsant medication used as an adjuvant in the treatment of neuropathic pain; few cases have been reported in which it causes acute liver injury.

CLINICAL CASE

56-year-old male patient with a history of chronic kidney disease on hemodialysis and narrowing of the spinal canal under treatment with gabapentin, who presented acute liver injury probably secondary to a dose of gabapentin; however, it remitted with the suspension of said drug.

CONCLUSION

Gabapentin lacks liver metabolism; the mechanism by which it produces liver injury is still unknown; however, there are reports of hepatotoxicity associated with its administration, so its use must be individualized for each patient.

Gabapentin controlled substance status

Gabapentin is approved to treat postherpetic neuralgia and epilepsy with partial-onset seizures. The large majority of gabapentin prescribing is off label. Gabapentin may be abused for euphoria, potentiating the high from opiates, reduction of alcohol cravings, a cocaine-like high, as well as sedation or sleep. Individuals at the highest risk for abusing gabapentin include those with opioid abuse, mental illness, or previous history of prescription drug abuse. States are now taking action to track gabapentin use through prescription monitoring programs, and some states have reclassified it as a Schedule V controlled substance. This commentary summarizes gabapentin's abuse potential, identifies state-level actions regarding gabapentin monitoring, and discusses possible clinical implications and ways to enhance patient safety when prescribing gabapentin.

Phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with cough, sputum production or dyspnoea, and a reduction in lung function, quality of life, and life expectancy. Apart from smoking cessation, no other treatments that slow lung function decline are available. Roflumilast and cilomilast are oral phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE₄) inhibitors proposed to reduce the airway inflammation and bronchoconstriction seen in COPD. This Cochrane Review was first published in 2011, and was updated in 2017 and 2020.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral PDE₄ inhibitors for management of stable COPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from the Cochrane Airways Trials Register (date of last search 9 March 2020). We found other trials at web-based clinical trials registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs if they compared oral PDE₄ inhibitors with placebo in people with COPD. We allowed co-administration of standard COPD therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Two independent review authors selected trials for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We resolved discrepancies by involving a third review author. We assessed our confidence in the evidence by using GRADE recommendations. Primary outcomes were change in lung function (minimally important difference (MID) = 100 mL) and quality of life (scale 0 to 100; higher score indicates more limitations).

MAIN RESULTS

We found 42 RCTs that met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analyses for roflumilast (28 trials with 18,046 participants) or cilomilast (14 trials with 6457 participants) or tetomilast (1 trial with 84 participants), with a duration between six weeks and one year or longer. These trials included people across international study centres with moderate to very severe COPD (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) grades II to IV), with mean age of 64 years. We judged risks of selection bias, performance bias, and attrition bias as low overall amongst the 39 published and unpublished trials. Lung function Treatment with a PDE₄ inhibitor was associated with a small, clinically insignificant improvement in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) over a mean of 40 weeks compared with placebo (mean difference (MD) 49.33 mL, 95% confidence interval (CI) 44.17 to 54.49; participants = 20,815; studies = 29; moderate-certainty evidence). Forced vital capacity (FVC) and peak expiratory flow (PEF) were also improved over 40 weeks (FVC: MD 86.98 mL, 95% CI 74.65 to 99.31; participants = 22,108; studies = 17; high-certainty evidence; PEF: MD 6.54 L/min, 95% CI 3.95 to 9.13; participants = 4245; studies = 6; low-certainty evidence). Quality of life Trials reported improvements in quality of life over a mean of 33 weeks (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) MD -1.06 units, 95% CI -1.68 to -0.43; participants = 7645 ; moderate-certainty evidence). Incidence of exacerbations Treatment with a PDE₄ inhibitor was associated with a reduced likelihood of COPD exacerbation over a mean of 40 weeks (odds ratio (OR) 0.78, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.84; participants = 20,382; studies = 27; high-certainty evidence), that is, for every 100 people treated with PDE₄ inhibitors, five more remained exacerbation-free during the study period compared with those given placebo (number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 20, 95% CI 16 to 27). No change in COPD-related symptoms nor in exercise tolerance was found. Adverse events More participants in the treatment groups experienced an adverse effect compared with control participants over a mean of 39 weeks (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.38; participants = 21,310; studies = 30; low-certainty evidence). Participants experienced a range of gastrointestinal symptoms such as diarrhoea, nausea, vomiting, or dyspepsia. Diarrhoea was more commonly reported with PDE₄ inhibitor treatment (OR 3.20, 95% CI 2.74 to 3.50; participants = 20,623; studies = 29; high-certainty evidence), that is, for every 100 people treated with PDE₄ inhibitors, seven more suffered from diarrhoea during the study period compared with those given placebo (number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 15, 95% CI 13 to 17). The likelihood of psychiatric adverse events was higher with roflumilast 500 µg than with placebo (OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.79 to 2.54; participants = 11,168; studies = 15 (COPD pool data); moderate-certainty evidence). Roflumilast in particular was associated with weight loss during the trial period and with an increase in insomnia and depressive mood symptoms. Participants treated with PDE₄ inhibitors were more likely to withdraw from trial participation; on average, 14% in the treatment groups withdrew compared with 8% in the control groups. Mortality No effect on mortality was found (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.24; participants = 19,786; studies = 27; moderate-certainty evidence), although mortality was a rare event during these trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For this current update, five new studies from the 2020 search contributed to existing findings but made little impact on outcomes described in earlier versions of this review. PDE₄ inhibitors offered a small benefit over placebo in improving lung function and reducing the likelihood of exacerbations in people with COPD; however, they had little impact on quality of life or on symptoms. Gastrointestinal adverse effects and weight loss were common, and the likelihood of psychiatric symptoms was higher, with roflumilast 500 µg. The findings of this review provide cautious support for the use of PDE₄ inhibitors in COPD. In accordance with GOLD 2020 guidelines, they may have a place as add-on therapy for a subgroup of people with persistent symptoms or exacerbations despite optimal COPD management (e.g. people whose condition is not controlled by fixed-dose long-acting beta₂-agonist (LABA) and inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) combinations). More longer-term trials are needed to determine whether or not PDE₄ inhibitors modify FEV₁ decline, hospitalisation, or mortality in COPD.

Hypothyroidism induced by phenytoin and gabapentin: A Case Report

RATIONALE

Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are one of the causative drugs of drug-induced hypothyroidism. In most cases, AED-induced hypothyroidism is subclinical and indicated only by abnormalities of free thyroxine (T4) and/or thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) levels. Severe symptomatic hypothyroidism following AEDs is rarely reported in the literature.

PATIENT CONCERNS

A 75-year-old man experienced neurologic symptoms including memory impairment, ataxic gait, sensory polyneuropathy and myopathy, lethargy, and edema of the face and lower extremities. He had been administered phenytoin and gabapentin for the treatment of symptomatic traumatic epilepsy 8 years before.

DIAGNOSES

The patient had low free T4 (0.21 ng/dL) and high TSH (113.2 μIU/mL), which indicated hypothyroidism. Negative thyroid-related autoantibody tests and the lack of goiter excluded the possibility of Hashimoto disease. Phenytoin and/or gabapentin were strongly suspected as causing his hypothyroidism.

INTERVENTION

The patient was treated with replacement therapy (levothyroxine 25 μg/day).

OUTCOMES

His symptoms markedly and promptly improved alongside continued antiepileptic therapy.

LESSONS

In this case, the patient's hypothyroidism was assumed to result from different mechanisms of the 2 AEDs leading to thyroid hormone reduction. AEDs can not only cause asymptomatic thyroid hormone abnormalities but also clinically observable hypothyroidism. Therefore, clinicians should be aware of the association between anticonvulsants and symptomatic hypothyroidism.

Gabapentin-Induced Bullous Pemphigoid

Bullous pemphigoid is an autoimmune blistering dermatosis with separation of the epidermis from the dermis. This disease process is common among elderly patients and manifests with subepidermal vesicles and tense bullae. Patients with bullous pemphigoid are more likely to have also received a previous diagnosis of a neurologic disorder. Gabapentin is an antiepileptic that is used to manage neuropathic pain. The authors describe, to their knowledge, the first report of gabapentin-induced bullous pemphigoid in an elderly man with no history of rashes or reactions to other medications.

Gabapentin dose and the 30-day risk of altered mental status in older adults: A retrospective population-based study

Gabapentin is an effective treatment for chronic neuropathic pain but may cause dizziness, drowsiness, and confusion in some older adults. The goal of this study was to assess the association between gabapentin dosing and adverse outcomes by obtaining estimates of the 30-day risk of hospitalization with altered mental status and mortality in older adults (mean age 76 years) in Ontario, Canada initiated on high dose (>600 mg/day; n = 34,159) compared to low dose (≤600 mg/day; n = 76,025) oral gabapentin in routine outpatient care. A population-based, retrospective cohort study assessing new gabapentin use between 2002 to 2014 was conducted. The primary outcome was 30-day hospitalization with an urgent head computed tomography (CT) scan in the absence of evidence of stroke (a proxy for altered mental status). The secondary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality. The baseline characteristics measured in the two dose groups were similar. Initiation of a high versus low dose of gabapentin was associated with a higher risk of hospitalization with head CT scan (1.27% vs. 1.06%, absolute risk difference 0.21%, adjusted relative risk 1.29 [95% CI 1.14 to 1.46], number needed to treat 477) but not a statistically significant higher risk of mortality (1.25% vs. 1.16%, absolute risk difference of 0.09%, adjusted relative risk of 1.01 [95% CI 0.89 to 1.14]). Overall, the risk of being hospitalized with altered mental status after initiating gabapentin remains low, but may be reduced through the judicious use of gabapentin, use of the lowest dose to control pain, and vigilance for early signs of altered mental status.

Gabapentin for Chronic Neuropathic Pain

CLINICAL QUESTION

Is gabapentin associated with pain relief in people with chronic neuropathic pain?

BOTTOM LINE

Oral gabapentin (1200-3600 mg/d for 4-12 weeks) for patients with moderate or severe neuropathic pain from postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) or painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) is associated with pain reduction of at least 50% in 14% to 17% more patients than placebo.

Flow cytometric examination of apoptotic effect on brain tissue in postnatal period created by intrauterine oxcarbazepine and gabapentin exposure

OBJECTIVE

For epileptics, pregnancy contains the balance between no seizure period and antiepileptic use having the least teratogenicity risk. The purpose is to analyse with flow cytometry the apoptotic effects on postnatal brain tissue caused by prenatal use of second generation antiepileptics oxcarbazepine (OXC) and gabapentin (GBP) having different effect mechanisms.

METHOD

30 (n = 5 each group) Wistar albino male rats (45-days-old) are used. First 3 groups are exposed to OXC (100 mg/kg/day), GBP (50 mg/kg/day), and saline, respectively on the 1st-5th prenatal days (preimplantation-implantation period) while the second 3 groups are exposed to the same substances on the 6th-15th prenatal days (organogenesis), respectively. After sacrifice, brain tissue samples were made into suspension with mechanic and enzymatic digestion and examined with flow cytometry.

RESULTS

While apoptosis rate appeared high in rats exposed to OXC on the 1st-5th (p < 0.001) and 6th-15th days (p < 0.001), no significant difference occurred for GBP (p = 0.004; p = 0.012) and saline (p = 0.012). Considering time effect in three treatment groups, while difference was not significant for PSS and GBP groups (p = 0.847 and p = 0.934), apoptosis rate was significantly high for OXC on the 6th-15th days compared to the 1st-5th days (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

It is observed that the use of OXC causes neurotoxicity during preimplantation, implantation and, especially, organogenesis period (neurogenesis) whereas GBP does not (Fig. 3, Ref. 32).

Abuse potential of gabapentin in dentistry

Gabapentin is an anticonvulsant drug widely prescribed for various ailments, including orofacial pain. It was once thought to have no potential for abuse; however, the last decade has seen a dramatic rise in the nonmedical use of gabapentin, particularly among opioid-dependent patients. Gabapentin is sedating and interacts with other sedating medications such as opioids, which can lead to impairment and accidents and may raise the risk of overdose. Dentists must be aware of the potential for abuse of gabapentin and weigh its benefits against its risks when prescribing the drug.

The Efficacy of Preoperative Gabapentin in Spinal Surgery: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Pain management after spinal surgery has been studied for years. Gabapentin is a third-generation antiepileptic drug that selectively affects the nociceptive process and has been used for pain relief after surgery. However, the relationship between gabapentin and postoperative pain in spinal surgery is still controversial.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy of the pre-emptive use of gabapentin in spinal surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies.

SETTING

The MEDLINE, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched.

METHODS

This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed to compare the use of gabapentin with placebo in spinal surgery regarding to the following: the mean difference (MD) of postoperative opioid requirements, the changes of visual analog scale (VAS) scores in 2 groups, and the incidence rate of adverse effects. An electronic-based search of all related literatures was conducted, and only RCTs for spinal surgery were included. The MD of postoperative opioid requirements and VAS scores and the relative risk (RR) of the incidence rate of adverse effects in the gabapentin group versus the placebo group were extracted throughout the study.

RESULTS

Ten trials, involving 827 patients, met the inclusion criteria and were included in this meta-analysis. The total morphine consumption was significantly lower over the first 24 hours postoperatively in the gabapentin group (P < 0.05). The VAS scores at 2, 4, 6, 12, and 24 hours were less in the gabapentin group (P < 0.05). The incidence rate of vomiting, pruritus, and urinary retention was significantly less in the gabapentin groups (RR = 0.53, 95% CI 0.32-0.86, P < 0.05; RR = 0.38, 95% CI 0.22-0.66, P < 0.05; RR = 0.57, 95% CI 0.34-0.98, P < 0.05, respectively).

LIMITATIONS

All of the studies we screened were published online except for unpublished articles. Only 10 RCTs met our inclusion criteria, so the sample size was still relatively small.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis suggests that the administration of gabapentin is effective in reducing postoperative opioid consumption, VAS scores, and some side effects after spinal surgery.

KEY WORDS

Gabapentin, analgesia, spinal surgery, meta-analysis, randomized controlled trials, visual analog scale score, side effect.

Multiple adverse drug reactions and genetic polymorphism testing: A case report with negative result

RATIONALE

Defects in drug metabolic pathways could explain why some patients have a history of multiple adverse drug reactions (ADR); therefore we aimed to analyze genetic polymorphisms in a patient with multiple ADR related to drugs with a common hepatic metabolic pathway through CYP2D6.

PATIENT CONCERNS

We report a patient with psychosis and hypertension related to amitriptyline, tramadol, and duloxetine within a 2-year period.

INTERVENTIONS AND OUTCOMES

A pharmacogenetic test was performed to assess the causative role of the CYP2D6 enzyme, but did not demonstrate a metabolic deficiency.

LESSONS

Although negative results in the reported case; typing for cytochrome P450 isoenzyme polymorphisms could be a useful diagnostic tool in some patients with a history of multiple ADR.

Phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitors for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with cough, sputum production or dyspnoea and a reduction in lung function, quality of life and life expectancy. Apart from smoking cessation, there are no other treatments that slow lung function decline. Roflumilast and cilomilast are oral phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE₄) inhibitors proposed to reduce the airway inflammation and bronchoconstriction seen in COPD. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2011 and updated in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral PDE₄ inhibitors in the management of stable COPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from the Cochrane Airways Trials Register (date of last search October 2016). We found other trials from web-based clinical trials registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs if they compared oral PDE₄ inhibitors with placebo in people with COPD. We allowed co-administration of standard COPD therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One review author extracted data and a second review author checked the data. We reported pooled data in Review Manager as mean differences (MD), standardised mean differences (SMD) or odds ratios (OR). We converted the odds ratios into absolute treatment effects in a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-four separate RCTs studying roflumilast (20 trials with 17,627 participants) or cilomilast (14 trials with 6457 participants) met the inclusion criteria, with a duration of between six weeks and one year. These included people across international study centres with moderate to very severe COPD (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) grades II-IV), with a mean age of 64 years.We considered that the methodological quality of the 34 published and unpublished trials was acceptable overall. Treatment with a PDE₄ inhibitor was associated with a significant improvement in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) over the trial period compared with placebo (MD 51.53 mL, 95% confidence interval (CI) 43.17 to 59.90, 27 trials with 20,585 participants, moderate-quality evidence due to moderate levels of heterogeneity and risk of reporting bias). There were small improvements in quality of life (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), MD -1.06 units, 95% CI -1.68 to -0.43, 11 trials with 7645 participants, moderate-quality evidence due to moderate levels of heterogeneity and risk of reporting bias) and COPD-related symptoms, but no significant change in exercise tolerance. Treatment with a PDE₄ inhibitor was associated with a reduced likelihood of COPD exacerbation (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.83; 23 trials with 19,948 participants, high-quality evidence). For every 100 people treated with PDE₄ inhibitors, five more remained exacerbation-free during the study period compared with placebo (number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 20, 95% CI 16 to 26). More participants in the treatment groups experienced non-serious adverse events compared with controls, particularly a range of gastrointestinal symptoms such as diarrhoea, nausea, vomiting or dyspepsia. For every 100 people treated with PDE₄ inhibitors, seven more suffered from diarrhoea during the study period compared with placebo (number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 15, 95% CI 13 to 17). Roflumilast in particular was associated with weight loss during the trial period and an increase in insomnia and depressive mood symptoms. There was no significant effect of treatment on non-fatal serious adverse events (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.07) or mortality (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.23), although mortality was a rare event during the trials. Participants treated with PDE₄ inhibitors were more likely to withdraw from the trials because of adverse effects; on average 14% in the treatment groups withdrew compared with 8% in the control groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In people with COPD, PDE₄ inhibitors offered benefit over placebo in improving lung function and reducing the likelihood of exacerbations; however, they had little impact on quality of life or symptoms. Gastrointestinal adverse effects and weight loss were common, and safety data submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have raised concerns over psychiatric adverse events with roflumilast. The findings of this review give cautious support to the use of PDE₄ inhibitors in COPD. They may be best used as add-on therapy in a subgroup of people with persistent symptoms or exacerbations despite optimal COPD management. This is in accordance with the GOLD 2017 guidelines. Longer-term trials are needed to determine whether or not PDE₄ inhibitors modify FEV₁ decline, hospitalisation or mortality in COPD.

A meta-analysis of the preoperative use of gabapentinoids for the treatment of acute postoperative pain following spinal surgery

BACKGROUND

Gabapentinoid drugs, which include gabapentin and pregabalin, play an established role in the management of neuropathic pain. However, whether preoperative administration of gabapentinoids has a beneficial role in controlling acute pain after spinal surgery is unknown. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine the efficacy and safety of the preoperative use of gabapentinoids (gabapentin and pregabalin) for the treatment of acute postoperative pain following spinal surgery.

METHODS

In March 2017, a systematic computer-based search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google databases. RCTs comparing gabapentinoids (gabapentin and pregabalin) with placebo in patients undergoing spine surgery were retrieved. The primary endpoint was the visual analogue scale (VAS) score with rest or mobilization at 6, 12, 24, and 48 hours and cumulative morphine consumption at 24 and 48 hours. The secondary outcomes were complications of nausea, vomiting, sedation, dizziness, headache, urine retention, pruritus, and visual disturbances. After tests for publication bias and heterogeneity among studies were performed, data were aggregated for random-effects models when necessary.

RESULTS

Sixteen clinical studies (gabapentin group n = 8 and pregabalin group n = 8) were ultimately included in the meta-analysis. Gabapentinoids were associated with reduced pain scores at 6, 12, 24, and 48 hours. Similarly, gabapentinoids were associated with a reduction in cumulative morphine consumption at 24 and 48 hours. Furthermore, gabapentinoids can significantly reduce the occurrence of nausea, vomiting, and pruritus. There were no significant differences in the occurrence of sedation, dizziness, headache, visual disturbances, somnolence, or urine retention.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative use of gabapentinoids was able to reduce postoperative pain, total morphine consumption, and morphine-related complications following spine surgery. Further studies should determine the optimal dose and whether pregabalin is superior to gabapentin in controlling acute pain after spine surgery.

Antiepileptic drugs for chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents

BACKGROUND

Pain is a common feature of childhood and adolescence around the world, and for many young people, that pain is chronic. The World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for pharmacological treatments for children's persisting pain acknowledge that pain in children is a major public health concern of high significance in most parts of the world. While in the past, pain was largely dismissed and was frequently left untreated, views on children's pain have changed over time, and relief of pain is now seen as importantWe designed a suite of seven reviews on chronic non-cancer pain and cancer pain (looking at antidepressants, antiepileptic drugs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, and paracetamol) in order to review the evidence for children's pain utilising pharmacological interventions in children and adolescents.As the leading cause of morbidity in the world today, chronic disease (and its associated pain) is a major health concern. Chronic pain (that is pain lasting three months or longer) can occur in the paediatric population in a variety of pathophysiological classifications (nociceptive, neuropathic, or idiopathic) relating to genetic conditions, nerve damage pain, chronic musculoskeletal pain, and chronic abdominal pain, and for other unknown reasons.Antiepileptic (anticonvulsant) drugs, which were originally developed to treat convulsions in people with epilepsy, have in recent years been used to provide pain relief in adults for many chronic painful conditions and are now recommended for the treatment of chronic pain in the WHO list of essential medicines. Known side effects of antiepileptic drugs range from sweating, headache, elevated temperature, nausea, and abdominal pain to more serious effects including mental or motor function impairment.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of antiepileptic drugs used to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents aged between birth and 17 years, in any setting.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE via Ovid, and Embase via Ovid from inception to 6 September 2016. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews as well as online clinical trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials, with or without blinding, by any route, treating chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents, comparing any antiepileptic drug with placebo or an active comparator.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility. We planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and number needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods if data were available. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created two 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two studies with a total of 141 participants (aged 7 to 18 years) with chronic neuropathic pain, complex regional pain syndrome type 1 (CRPS-I), or fibromyalgia. One study investigated pregabalin versus placebo in participants with fibromyalgia (107 participants), and the other study investigated gabapentin versus amitriptyline in participants with CRPS-I or neuropathic pain (34 participants). We were unable to perform any quantitative analysis.Risk of bias for the two included studies varied, due to issues with randomisation (low to unclear risk), blinding of outcome assessors (low to unclear risk), reporting bias (low to unclear risk), the size of the study populations (high risk), and industry funding in the 'other' domain (low to unclear risk). We judged the remaining domains of sequence generation, blinding of participants and personnel, and attrition as low risk of bias. Primary outcomesOne study (gabapentin 900 mg/day versus amitriptyline 10 mg/day, 34 participants, for 6 weeks) did not report our primary outcomes (very low-quality evidence).The second study (pregabalin 75 to 450 mg/day versus placebo 75 to 450 mg/day, 107 participants, for 15 weeks) reported no significant change in pain scores for pain relief of 30% or greater between pregabalin 18/54 (33.3%), and placebo 16/51 (31.4%), P = 0.83 (very low-quality evidence). This study also reported Patient Global Impression of Change, with the percentage of participants feeling "much or very much improved" with pregabalin 53.1%, and placebo 29.5% (very low-quality evidence).We downgraded the evidence by three levels to very low for one of two reasons: due to the fact that there was no evidence to support or refute the use of the intervention, or that there were too few data and the number of events was too small to be meaningful. Secondary outcomesIn one small study, adverse events were uncommon: gabapentin 2 participants (2 adverse events); amitriptyline 1 participant (1 adverse event) (6-week trial). The second study reported a higher number of adverse events: pregabalin 38 participants (167 adverse events); placebo 34 participants (132 adverse events) (15-week trial) (very low-quality evidence).Withdrawals due to adverse events were infrequent in both studies: pregabalin (4 participants), placebo (4 participants), gabapentin (2 participants), and amitriptyline (1 participant) (very low-quality evidence).Serious adverse events were reported in both studies. One study reported only one serious adverse event (cholelithiasis and major depression resulting in hospitalisation in the pregabalin group) and the other study reported no serious adverse events (very low-quality evidence).There were few or no data for our remaining secondary outcomes (very low-quality evidence).We downgraded the evidence by three levels to very low due to too few data and the fact that the number of events was too small to be meaningful.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review identified only two small studies, with insufficient data for analysis.As we could undertake no meta-analysis, we were unable to comment about efficacy or harm from the use of antiepileptic drugs to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents. Similarly, we could not comment on our remaining secondary outcomes: Carer Global Impression of Change; requirement for rescue analgesia; sleep duration and quality; acceptability of treatment; physical functioning; and quality of life.We know from adult randomised controlled trials that some antiepileptics, such as gabapentin and pregabalin, can be effective in certain chronic pain conditions.We found no evidence to support or refute the use of antiepileptic drugs to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents.

Antidepressants for chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents

BACKGROUND

Pain is a common feature of childhood and adolescence around the world, and for many young people, that pain is chronic. The World Health Organization guidelines for pharmacological treatments for children's persisting pain acknowledge that pain in children is a major public health concern of high significance in most parts of the world. While in the past pain was largely dismissed and was frequently left untreated, views on children's pain have changed over time and relief of pain is now seen as important.We designed a suite of seven reviews on chronic non-cancer pain and cancer pain (looking at antidepressants, antiepileptic drugs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, and paracetamol) in order to review the evidence for children's pain utilising pharmacological interventions.As the leading cause of morbidity in the world today, chronic disease (and its associated pain) is a major health concern. Chronic pain (that is pain lasting three months or longer) can arise in the paediatric population in a variety of pathophysiological classifications (nociceptive, neuropathic, or idiopathic) from genetic conditions, nerve damage pain, chronic musculoskeletal pain, and chronic abdominal pain, as well as for other unknown reasons.Antidepressants have been used in adults for pain relief and pain management since the 1970s. The clinical impression from extended use over many years is that antidepressants are useful for some neuropathic pain symptoms, and that effects on pain relief are divorced and different from effects on depression; for example, the effects of tricyclic antidepressants on pain may occur at different, and often lower, doses than those on depression. Amitriptyline is one of the most commonly used drugs for treating neuropathic pain in the UK.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of antidepressants used to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents aged between birth and 17 years, in any setting.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE via Ovid, and Embase via Ovid from inception to 6 September 2016. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and searched online clinical trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials, with or without blinding, of any dose and any route, treating chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents, comparing any antidepressant with placebo or an active comparator.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility. We planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and number needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created three 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies with a total of 272 participants (6 to 18 years of age) who had either chronic neuropathic pain, complex regional pain syndrome type 1, irritable bowel syndrome, functional abdominal pain, or functional dyspepsia. All of the studies were small. One study investigated amitriptyline versus gabapentin (34 participants), two studies investigated amitriptyline versus placebo (123 participants), and one study investigated citalopram versus placebo (115 participants). Due to a lack of available data we were unable to complete any quantitative analysis.Risk of bias for the four included studies varied, due to issues with randomisation and allocation concealment (low to unclear risk); blinding of participants, personnel, and outcome assessors (low to unclear risk); reporting of results (low to unclear risk); and size of the study populations (high risk). We judged the remaining domains, attrition and other potential sources of bias, as low risk of bias. Primary outcomesNo studies reported our primary outcomes of participant-reported pain relief of 30% or greater or 50% or greater (very low-quality evidence).No studies reported on Patient Global Impression of Change (very low-quality evidence).We rated the overall quality of the evidence (GRADE rating) as very low. We downgraded the quality of the evidence by three levels to very low because there was no evidence to support or refute. Secondary outcomesAll studies measured adverse events, with very few reported (11 out of 272 participants). All but one adverse event occurred in the active treatment groups (amitriptyline, citalopram, and gabapentin). Adverse events in all studies, across active treatment and comparator groups, were considered to be a mild reaction, such as nausea, dizziness, drowsiness, tiredness, and abdominal discomfort (very low-quality evidence).There were also very few withdrawals due to adverse events, again all but one from the active treatment groups (very low-quality evidence).No serious adverse events were reported across any of the studies (very low-quality evidence).There were few or no data for our remaining secondary outcomes (very low-quality evidence).We rated the overall quality of the evidence (GRADE rating) for these secondary outcomes as very low. We downgraded the quality of the evidence by three levels to very low due to too few data and the fact that the number of events was too small to be meaningful.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We identified only a small number of studies with small numbers of participants and insufficient data for analysis.As we could undertake no meta-analysis, we are unable to comment about efficacy or harm from the use of antidepressants to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents. Similarly, we cannot comment on our remaining secondary outcomes: Carer Global Impression of Change; requirement for rescue analgesia; sleep duration and quality; acceptability of treatment; physical functioning; and quality of life.There is evidence from adult randomised controlled trials that some antidepressants, such as amitriptyline, can provide some pain relief in certain chronic non-cancer pain conditions.There is no evidence from randomised controlled trials to support or refute the use of antidepressants to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children or adolescents.

Antiepileptic drugs for chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents

BACKGROUND

Pain is a common feature of childhood and adolescence around the world, and for many young people, that pain is chronic. The World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for pharmacological treatments for children's persisting pain acknowledge that pain in children is a major public health concern of high significance in most parts of the world. While in the past, pain was largely dismissed and was frequently left untreated, views on children's pain have changed over time, and relief of pain is now seen as importantWe designed a suite of seven reviews on chronic non-cancer pain and cancer pain (looking at antidepressants, antiepileptic drugs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, and paracetamol) in order to review the evidence for children's pain utilising pharmacological interventions in children and adolescents.As the leading cause of morbidity in the world today, chronic disease (and its associated pain) is a major health concern. Chronic pain (that is pain lasting three months or longer) can occur in the paediatric population in a variety of pathophysiological classifications (nociceptive, neuropathic, or idiopathic) relating to genetic conditions, nerve damage pain, chronic musculoskeletal pain, and chronic abdominal pain, and for other unknown reasons.Antiepileptic (anticonvulsant) drugs, which were originally developed to treat convulsions in people with epilepsy, have in recent years been used to provide pain relief in adults for many chronic painful conditions and are now recommended for the treatment of chronic pain in the WHO list of essential medicines. Known side effects of antiepileptic drugs range from sweating, headache, elevated temperature, nausea, and abdominal pain to more serious effects including mental or motor function impairment.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of antiepileptic drugs used to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents aged between birth and 17 years, in any setting.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE via Ovid, and Embase via Ovid from inception to 6 September 2016. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews as well as online clinical trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials, with or without blinding, by any route, treating chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents, comparing any antiepileptic drug with placebo or an active comparator.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility. We planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and number needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods if data were available. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created two 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two studies with a total of 141 participants (aged 7 to 18 years) with chronic neuropathic pain, complex regional pain syndrome type 1 (CRPS-I), or fibromyalgia. One study investigated pregabalin versus placebo in participants with fibromyalgia (107 participants), and the other study investigated gabapentin versus amitriptyline in participants with CRPS-I or neuropathic pain (34 participants). We were unable to perform any quantitative analysis.Risk of bias for the two included studies varied, due to issues with randomisation (low to unclear risk), blinding of outcome assessors (low to unclear risk), reporting bias (low to unclear risk), the size of the study populations (high risk), and industry funding in the 'other' domain (low to unclear risk). We judged the remaining domains of sequence generation, blinding of participants and personnel, and attrition as low risk of bias. Primary outcomesOne study (gabapentin 900 mg/day versus amitriptyline 10 mg/day, 34 participants, for 6 weeks) did not report our primary outcomes (very low-quality evidence).The second study (pregabalin 75 to 450 mg/day versus placebo 75 to 450 mg/day, 107 participants, for 15 weeks) reported no significant change in pain scores for pain relief of 30% or greater between pregabalin 18/54 (33.3%), and placebo 16/51 (31.4%), P = 0.83 (very low-quality evidence). This study also reported Patient Global Impression of Change, with the percentage of participants feeling "much or very much improved" with pregabalin 53.1%, and placebo 29.5% (very low-quality evidence).We downgraded the evidence by three levels to very low for one of two reasons: due to the fact that there was no evidence to support or refute the use of the intervention, or that there were too few data and the number of events was too small to be meaningful. Secondary outcomesIn one small study, adverse events were uncommon: gabapentin 2 participants (2 adverse events); amitriptyline 1 participant (1 adverse event) (6-week trial). The second study reported a higher number of adverse events: pregabalin 38 participants (167 adverse events); placebo 34 participants (132 adverse events) (15-week trial) (very low-quality evidence).Withdrawals due to adverse events were infrequent in both studies: pregabalin (4 participants), placebo (4 participants), gabapentin (2 participants), and amitriptyline (1 participant) (very low-quality evidence).Serious adverse events were reported in both studies. One study reported only one serious adverse event (cholelithiasis and major depression resulting in hospitalisation in the pregabalin group) and the other study reported no serious adverse events (very low-quality evidence).There were few or no data for our remaining secondary outcomes (very low-quality evidence).We downgraded the evidence by three levels to very low due to too few data and the fact that the number of events was too small to be meaningful.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review identified only two small studies, with insufficient data for analysis.As we could undertake no meta-analysis, we were unable to comment about efficacy or harm from the use of antiepileptic drugs to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents. Similarly, we could not comment on our remaining secondary outcomes: Carer Global Impression of Change; requirement for rescue analgesia; sleep duration and quality; acceptability of treatment; physical functioning; and quality of life.We know from adult randomised controlled trials that some antiepileptics, such as gabapentin and pregabalin, can be effective in certain chronic pain conditions.We found no evidence to support or refute the use of antiepileptic drugs to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents.

Gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Gabapentin is commonly used to treat neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage). This review updates a review published in 2014, and previous reviews published in 2011, 2005 and 2000.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of gabapentin in chronic neuropathic pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update we searched CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase for randomised controlled trials from January 2014 to January 2017. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and online clinical trials registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind trials of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing gabapentin (any route of administration) with placebo or another active treatment for neuropathic pain, with participant-reported pain assessment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality and potential bias. Primary outcomes were participants with substantial pain relief (at least 50% pain relief over baseline or very much improved on Patient Global Impression of Change scale (PGIC)), or moderate pain relief (at least 30% pain relief over baseline or much or very much improved on PGIC). We performed a pooled analysis for any substantial or moderate benefit. Where pooled analysis was possible, we used dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) or harmful outcome (NNH). We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four new studies (530 participants), and excluded three previously included studies (126 participants). In all, 37 studies provided information on 5914 participants. Most studies used oral gabapentin or gabapentin encarbil at doses of 1200 mg or more daily in different neuropathic pain conditions, predominantly postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy. Study duration was typically four to 12 weeks. Not all studies reported important outcomes of interest. High risk of bias occurred mainly due to small size (especially in cross-over studies), and handling of data after study withdrawal.In postherpetic neuralgia, more participants (32%) had substantial benefit (at least 50% pain relief or PGIC very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (17%) (RR 1.8 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.1); NNT 6.7 (5.4 to 8.7); 8 studies, 2260 participants, moderate-quality evidence). More participants (46%) had moderate benefit (at least 30% pain relief or PGIC much or very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (25%) (RR 1.8 (95% CI 1.6 to 2.0); NNT 4.8 (4.1 to 6.0); 8 studies, 2260 participants, moderate-quality evidence).In painful diabetic neuropathy, more participants (38%) had substantial benefit (at least 50% pain relief or PGIC very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (21%) (RR 1.9 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.3); NNT 5.9 (4.6 to 8.3); 6 studies, 1277 participants, moderate-quality evidence). More participants (52%) had moderate benefit (at least 30% pain relief or PGIC much or very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (37%) (RR 1.4 (95% CI 1.3 to 1.6); NNT 6.6 (4.9 to 9.9); 7 studies, 1439 participants, moderate-quality evidence).For all conditions combined, adverse event withdrawals were more common with gabapentin (11%) than with placebo (8.2%) (RR 1.4 (95% CI 1.1 to 1.7); NNH 30 (20 to 65); 22 studies, 4346 participants, high-quality evidence). Serious adverse events were no more common with gabapentin (3.2%) than with placebo (2.8%) (RR 1.2 (95% CI 0.8 to 1.7); 19 studies, 3948 participants, moderate-quality evidence); there were eight deaths (very low-quality evidence). Participants experiencing at least one adverse event were more common with gabapentin (63%) than with placebo (49%) (RR 1.3 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.4); NNH 7.5 (6.1 to 9.6); 18 studies, 4279 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Individual adverse events occurred significantly more often with gabapentin. Participants taking gabapentin experienced dizziness (19%), somnolence (14%), peripheral oedema (7%), and gait disturbance (14%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Gabapentin at doses of 1800 mg to 3600 mg daily (1200 mg to 3600 mg gabapentin encarbil) can provide good levels of pain relief to some people with postherpetic neuralgia and peripheral diabetic neuropathy. Evidence for other types of neuropathic pain is very limited. The outcome of at least 50% pain intensity reduction is regarded as a useful outcome of treatment by patients, and the achievement of this degree of pain relief is associated with important beneficial effects on sleep interference, fatigue, and depression, as well as quality of life, function, and work. Around 3 or 4 out of 10 participants achieved this degree of pain relief with gabapentin, compared with 1 or 2 out of 10 for placebo. Over half of those treated with gabapentin will not have worthwhile pain relief but may experience adverse events. Conclusions have not changed since the previous update of this review.

Radiologic Findings in Gabapentin-Induced Myositis

Throughout recent years, Gabapentin has become increasingly used for the treatment of neuropathic pain. We report on a case of a 31 year old female who presented to the emergency department with unilateral leg pain, weakness, and swelling after increasingly titrating her Gabapentin dosage over three weeks. Magnetic resonance imaging confirmed the presence of myositis confined to the left thigh and the patient's symptoms and laboratory abnormalities resolved following Gabapentin cessation. While Gabapentin-induced myositis and rhabdomyolysis is a rare entity, it should be a diagnostic consideration for radiologists, particularly in the absence of infection or trauma.

The comparative preemptive analgesic efficacy of addition of vitamin B complex to gabapentin versus gabapentin alone in women undergoing cesarean section under spinal anesthesia: A prospective randomized double-blind study

BACKGROUND

Development of new multimodal analgesic regimens have led to substantial improvement in postoperative pain relief. We designed this study to compare the effect of combined vitamin B complex-gabapentin versus gabapentin alone on postoperative pain in women undergoing cesarean section under spinal anesthesia.

METHODS

One hundred twenty-eight women who underwent cesarean section under spinal anesthesia were randomized to receive orally 300 mg gabapentin (group G) or 300 mg of gabapentin plus 2 vitamin B complex (group GB) tablets 30 minutes before surgery. Postoperative pain intensity and total analgesic consumption during 12 hours after surgery, vomiting, and drowsiness during recovery were assessed.

RESULTS

The pain intensity in the gabapentin plus vitamin B complex group was lower than gabapentin group during 12 hours after surgery (95% CI: 1.4-2.2; P < .001). Meanwhile, the total analgesic consumption in this group was less than gabapentin alone (95% CI: 1.07-1.24; P = 0.034). The incidence of vomiting in patients who receive combined gabapentin-vitamin B complex group was similar to gabapentin alone (P = .206). The difference of the distribution of the relative frequency of sedation according to Ramsay sedation scores in patients between 2 groups were insignificant (P = .82). All newborns in our study were free of any adverse effects.

CONCLUSION

Addition of vitamin B complex to gabapentin reduced intensity of postoperative pain and also the total amount of analgesic consumption within the first 12 hours postoperative following cesarean section.

An Atypical Withdrawal Syndrome in Neonates Prenatally Exposed to Gabapentin and Opioids

We report a retrospective case series of 19 infants exposed to both opioids and gabapentin prenatally. We describe a unique behavioral phenotype in 15 of these infants and report a treatment strategy.

Gabapentin-induced aquagenic wrinkling of the palms

Aquagenic keratoderma (AK) or aquagenic wrinklingis a rare palmoplantar skin disease. It is sporadic orhereditary condition. It appears in childhood or youngadulthood and it is seen as multiple asymptomaticsmall shiny papules on the peripheral margin ofpalms and/or soles after submersion in water. Thepathogenesis and etiology of ASA remains unclear.Drugs sometimes trigger AK. Herein, we present thecase of a 29-year-old man who had begun treatmentwith gabapentin three weeks before the onset of hiscutaneous symptoms.

Gabapentin for fibromyalgia pain in adults

BACKGROUND

This review replaces part of an earlier review that evaluated gabapentin for both neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia, now split into separate reviews for the two conditions. This review will consider pain in fibromyalgia only.Fibromyalgia is associated with widespread pain lasting longer than three months, and is frequently associated with symptoms such as poor sleep, fatigue, depression, and reduced quality of life. Fibromyalgia is more common in women.Gabapentin is an antiepileptic drug widely licensed for treatment of neuropathic pain. It is not licensed for the treatment of fibromyalgia, but is commonly used because fibromyalgia can respond to the same medicines as neuropathic pain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy of gabapentin for fibromyalgia pain in adults and the adverse events associated with its use in clinical trials.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE via Ovid and Embase via Ovid from inception to 24 May 2016. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and searched online clinical trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind trials of eight weeks' duration or longer for treating fibromyalgia pain in adults, comparing gabapentin with placebo or an active comparator.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent review authors extracted data and assessed trial quality and risk of bias. We planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and number needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods. We assessed the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

Two studies tested gabapentin to treat fibromyalgia pain. One was identified in previous versions of the review and is included here. We identified another study as a conference abstract, with insufficient detail to determine eligibility for inclusion; it is awaiting assessment. The one included study of 150 participants was a 12-week, multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study using last-observation-carried-forward imputation for withdrawals. The maximum dose was 2400 mg daily. The overall risk of bias was low, except for attrition bias.At the end of the trial, the outcome of 50% reduction in pain over baseline was not reported. The outcome of 30% or greater reduction in pain over baseline was achieved by 38/75 participants (49%) with gabapentin compared with 23/75 (31%) with placebo (very low quality). A patient global impression of change any category of "better" was achieved by 68/75 (91%) with gabapentin and 35/75 (47%) with placebo (very low quality).Nineteen participants discontinued the study because of adverse events: 12 in the gabapentin group (16%) and 7 in the placebo group (9%) (very low quality). The number of serious adverse events were not reported, and no deaths were reported (very low quality).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We have only very low quality evidence and are very uncertain about estimates of benefit and harm because of a small amount of data from a single trial. There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the suggestion that gabapentin reduces pain in fibromyalgia.

Gabapentin-Induced Severe Myopathy

Objective:

To report and discuss a case of rhabdomyolysis in an elderly patient with neuropathic pain who was treated with gabapentin.

Case Summary:

An 85-year-old diabetic woman was hospitalized for severe pain in her lower limbs and difficulty in walking, compromising her daily activities. On admission, the woman's laboratory parameters, including creatine kinase (CK) and myoglobin, were in the normal range. Neurologic evaluation suggested a diagnosis of diabetic neuropathic pain, and therapy with gabapentin 150 mg 3 times daily was started. On the same day, the patient developed psychomotor agitation and gastric pain, which were treated with haloperidol 10 mg and lansoprazole 30 mg, respectively. In the following hours, the severity of muscular pain increased and the patient developed myopathy with acute renal failure (CK 459 U/L, myoglobin 11 437 ng/mL, creatinine 4.59 mg/dL), which worsened progressively during the next 2 days (CK 3095 U/L, myoglobin 17 000 mg/dL, creatinine 4.77 mg/dL) despite discontinuation of haloperidol and lansoprazole. No signs of trauma or edema, suggesting possible compartmental or crush syndrome, were detected. Gabapentin was then withdrawn and the patient's condition rapidly improved. Complete recovery followed in about 10 days.

Discussion:

Severe myopathy is an unexpected adverse reaction to gabapentin therapy. In this patient, a possible contribution of haloperidol or lansoprazole to the adverse event cannot be excluded. However, worsening of the clinical picture despite discontinuation of these drugs, together with rapid improvement observed after withdrawal of gabapentin, strongly suggest a causative role of gabapentin. According to the Naranjo probability scale, gabapentin was the probable cause of myopathy in this patient. The mechanism by which gabapentin may induce myopathy is unknown. The early onset of the syndrome after initiation of treatment with gabapentin in therapeutic doses is compatible with the picture of an idiosyncratic adverse response.

Conclusions:

Pathogenetic and clinical investigations are required to explore what mechanisms account for gabapentin-related muscular alterations at the time of onset, including electromyographic recordings as well as muscle and nerve histopathologic examinations. Until more information is available, clinicians should consider the possibility of discontinuing gabapentin treatment in patients showing muscular pain and signs of myopathy.

Comparative persistence of antiepileptic drugs in patients with epilepsy: A STROBE-compliant retrospective cohort study

We compared persistence of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) including carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, gabapentin, lamotrigine, topiramate, valproic acid, and phenytoin in an Asian population with epilepsy.A retrospective cohort study was conducted by analyzing Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD). Adult epilepsy patients newly prescribed with AEDs between 2005 and 2009 were included. The primary outcome was persistence, defined as the treatment duration from the date of AED initiation to the date of AED discontinuation, switching, hospitalization due to seizure or disenrollment from databases, whichever came first. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate the risk of non-persistence with AEDs.Among the 13,061 new users of AED monotherapy (mean age: 58 years; 60% men), the persistence ranged from 218.8 (gabapentin) to 275.9 (oxcarbazepine) days in the first treatment year. The risks of non-persistence in patients receiving oxcarbazepine (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; 95% CI, 0.74-0.83), valproic acid (0.88; 0.85-0.92), lamotrigine (0.72; 0.65-0.81), and topiramate (0.90; 0.82-0.98) were significantly lower than in the carbamazepine group. Compared with carbamazepine users, the non-persistence risk was higher in phenytoin users (1.10; 1.06-1.13), while gabapentin users (1.03; 0.98-1.09) had similar risk. For risk of hospitalization due to seizure and in comparison with carbamazepine users, oxcarbazepine (0.66; 0.58-0.74) and lamotrigine (0.46; 0.35-0.62) users had lower risk, while phenytoin (1.35; 1.26-1.44) users had higher risk. The results remained consistent throughout series of sensitivity and stratification analyses.The persistence varied among AEDs and was better for oxcarbazepine, valproic acid, lamotrigine, and topiramate, but worse for phenytoin when compared with carbamazepine.

The Effect of Gabapentin on Acute Postoperative Pain in Patients Undergoing Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of gabapentin versus placebo for pain control after total knee arthroplasty (TKA).In December 2015, a systematic computer-based search was conducted in the Medline, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CENTRAL), Web of Science, Google, and Chinese Wanfang databases. This systematic review and meta-analysis were performed according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement criteria. The primary endpoint was the visual analogue scale (VAS) score after TKA with rest or mobilization at 24 and 48 hours, representing the efficacy of pain control after TKA. Cumulative morphine consumption via patient controlled anesthesia (PCA) was also assessed to determine the morphine-spare effect. Complications such as dizziness, pruritus, vomiting, nausea, and sedation were also compiled to assess the safety of gabapentin. Stata 12.0 software was used for the meta-analysis. After testing for publication bias and heterogeneity across studies, the data were aggregated for random-effects modeling whenever necessary.Six studies involving 769 patients met the inclusion criteria. Our meta-analysis revealed that gabapentin resulted in superior pain relief compared to the control group in terms of VAS score with rest at 24 hours (mean difference [MD] = -3.47; 95% confidence interval [CI] -6.16 to -0.77; P = 0.012) and at 48 hours postoperatively (MD = -2.25; 95% CI -4.21 to -0.30; P = 0.024). There was no statistically significant difference between the groups with respect to the VAS score at 24 hours postoperatively (MD = 1.05; 95% CI -3.31 to 5.42; P = 0.636) or at 48 hours (MD = 1.71; 95% CI -0.74 to 4.15; P = 0.171). These results indicated that the perioperative administration of gabapentin decreases the cumulative morphine consumption via PCA at 24 hours (MD = -8.28; 95% CI -12.57 to -3.99; P = 0.000) and 48 hours (MD = -4.50; 95% CI -10.98 to -3.61; P = 0.221). Furthermore, gabapentin decreased the rate of postoperative dizziness (relative risk [RR], 0.68; 95% CI 0.47-0.99, P = 0.044) and the occurrence of pruritus (RR, 0.50; 95% CI 0.37-0.67, P = 0.000).Based on the current meta-analysis, gabapentin exerts an analgesic and opioid-sparing effect in acute postoperative pain management without increasing the rate of dizziness and pruritus.

Clinical Trial Assessing the Efficacy of Gabapentin Plus B Complex (B1/B12) versus Pregabalin for Treating Painful Diabetic Neuropathy

INTRODUCTION

Painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) is a prevalent and impairing disorder. The objective of this study was to show the efficacy and safety of gabapentin (GBP) plus complex B vitamins: thiamine (B1) and cyanocobalamine (B12) compared to pregabalin in patients with moderate to severe intensity PDN.

METHOD

Multicenter, randomized, blind study. Two hundred and seventy patients were evaluated, 147 with GBP/B1/B12 and 123 with PGB, with a 7/10 pain intensity on the Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Five visits (12 weeks) were scheduled. The GBP/B1 (100 mg)/B12 (20 mg) group started with 300 mg at visit 1 to 3600 mg at visit 5. The PGB group started with 75 mg/d at visit 1 to 600 mg/d at visit 5. Different safety and efficacy scales were applied, as well as adverse event assessment.

RESULTS

Both drugs showed reduction of pain intensity, without significant statistical difference (P = 0.900). In the GBP/B1/B12 group, an improvement of at least 30% on VAS correlated to a 900 mg/d dose, compared with PGB 300 mg/d. Likewise, occurrence of vertigo was lower in the GBP/B1-B12 group, with a significant statistical difference, P = 0.014.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows that GPB/B1-B12 combination is as effective as PGB. Nonetheless, pain intensity reduction is achieved with 50% of the minimum required gabapentin dose alone (800 to 1600 mg/d) in classic NDD trials. Less vertigo and dizziness occurrence was also observed in the GBP/B1/B12 group. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01364298.

Pharmacological treatment for pain in Guillain-Barré syndrome

BACKGROUND

Pain in Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is common, yet it is often under recognised and poorly managed. In recent years, a variety of pharmacological treatment options have been investigated in clinical trials for people with GBS-associated pain. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 10, 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatments for various pain symptoms associated with GBS, during both the acute and convalescent (three months or more after onset) phases of GBS.

SEARCH METHODS

On 3 November 2014, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE. In addition, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in participants with confirmed GBS, with pain assessment as either the primary or secondary outcome. For cross-over trials, an adequate washout period between phases was required for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of identified records, selected studies for inclusion, extracted eligible data, cross-checked the data for accuracy and assessed the risk of bias of each study.

MAIN RESULTS

Three short-term RCTs, which enrolled 277 randomised participants with acute phase GBS, were included. Risk of bias in the included studies was generally unclear due to insufficient information. None of the included studies reported the primary outcome selected for this review, which was number of patients with self reported pain relief of 50% or greater. One small study investigated seven-day regimens of gabapentin versus placebo. Pain was rated on a scale from 0 (no pain) to 10 (maximum pain). Amongst the 18 participants, significantly lower mean pain scores were found at the endpoint (day 7) in the gabapentin phase compared to the endpoint of the placebo phase (mean difference -3.61, 95% CI -4.12 to -3.10) (very low quality evidence). For adverse events, no significant differences were found in the incidence of nausea (risk ratio (RR) 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.04) or constipation (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.54). A second study enrolling 36 participants compared gabapentin, carbamazepine and placebo, all administered over seven days. Participants in the gabapentin group had significantly lower median pain scores on all treatment days in comparison to the placebo and carbamazepine groups (P < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in the median pain scores between the carbamazepine and placebo groups from day 1 to day 3, but from day 4 until the end of the study significantly lower median pain scores were noted in the carbamazepine group (P < 0.05) (very low quality evidence). There were no adverse effects of gabapentin or carbamazepine reported, other than sedation. One large RCT (223 participants, all also treated with intravenous immunoglobulin), compared a five-day course of methylprednisolone with placebo and found no statistically significant differences in number of participants developing pain (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.16), number of participants with decreased pain (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.42) or number of participants with increased pain (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.41) (low quality evidence). The study did not report whether there were any adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Since the last version of this review we found no new studies. While management of pain in GBS is essential and pharmacotherapy is widely accepted as being an important component of treatment, this review does not provide sufficient evidence to support the use of any pharmacological intervention in people with pain in GBS. Although reductions in pain severity were found when comparing gabapentin and carbamazepine with placebo, the evidence was limited and its quality very low. Larger, well-designed RCTs are required to further investigate the efficacy and safety of potential interventions for patients with pain in GBS. Additionally, interventions for pain in the convalescent phase of GBS should be investigated.

Efficacy and safety of gabapentin for uremic pruritus and restless legs syndrome in conservatively managed patients with chronic kidney disease

CONTEXT

Pruritus and restless legs syndrome (RLS) frequently affect patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), impacting the quality of life. Gabapentin (1-aminomethyl cyclohexane acetic acid) alleviates these symptoms in hemodialysis (HD) patients, but data are lacking for patients on the conservative pathway.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the safety and effectiveness of gabapentin for pruritus or RLS in conservatively managed patients (n = 34) with CKD and ESKD.

METHODS

This was a single-center retrospective cohort study. We compared dosing and side effects in 34 CKD/ESKD patients with similar patients receiving HD (n = 15).

RESULTS

Forty-four percent of conservatively managed patients complained of RLS and/or pruritus; 18% were excluded for a nonuremic cause of symptom. Thirty-four patients were included in the final analysis. The most common starting daily dose of gabapentin was the equivalent of 50 mg (44.1%) or 100 mg (38.2%) daily, with the median daily dose of 100 mg (range 39-455 mg). Side effects occurred in 47% of patients, with 17% discontinuing gabapentin. Gabapentin reduced symptoms of pruritus (P < 0.001) and RLS (P < 0.05). There was no statistical difference when comparing HD and conservatively managed patients for daily starting dose (P = 0.88), median dose (P = 0.84), and final dose (P = 0.18). Patients conservatively managed were more likely to manifest side effects compared with HD patients (47.1% vs. 14.3%, P = 0.023). Dose was not found to be a factor associated with side effects in univariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

Gabapentin is a viable treatment for conservatively managed CKD and ESKD patients with pruritus and/or RLS, but side effects are common. Gabapentin should be used with caution although higher doses do not appear to be a factor associated with side effects.

[Rhabdomyolysis from gabapentin: a case report]

Gabapentin (GBP) is a drug with different indications.Is not metabolized and is excreted by the kidney. The common side effects are: arthralgia, myalgia, fatigue, dizziness and ataxia. Rhabdomyolysis is an extremely rare side effect. This latter, that can be caused by trauma, strenuous exercise, infections, drugs and toxins, is a syndrome characterized by loss of skeletal muscle resulting in the release of myocyte components in the circulation. Following a case of rhabdomyolysis caused by GBP in patient with chronic renal failure (CRF). A 65-year-old diabetic men, in peritoneal dialysis (PD), affected by ischemic and hypokinetic cardiomyopathy, sensorimotor neuropathy. The patient reported: weakness, diffuse myalgias, hypotension. He had been taking GBP for three days, after the failure of therapies with tricyclic antidepressants, opioids and NSAIDs. Laboratory tests confirmed the increase of the indices of muscle necrosis.The immediate withdrawal of the drug in association with CAPD dialysis treatment, led to improvement of the clinical and biochemical parameters. During the last 10 years, 3 cases of rhabdomyolysis referred to the assumption of GBP have been reported. The use of PD for treatment of acute renal failure, has been significantly reduced over the years. The effectiveness of the purification method is much lower than the one with the continuous extracorporeal treatments. In conclusion, GBP may be associated with rhabdomyolysis. Since GBP toxicity in CRF patients is often overlooked, a better awareness of this phenomenon and a thorough follow-up of laboratory tests to detect any possible early adverse reaction is suggested.

Gabapentin and pregabalin: hepatic and haematological toxicity

A review of pharmacovigilance data collected in France has shown that gabapentin and pregabalin are associated with serious and sometimes fatal hepatic and haematological disorders.

Gabapentin: can it be misused?

Gabapentin, a gamma-aminobutyric acid analog drug, appears to be safe and efficacious for the treatment of alcohol dependence. Gabapentin is not a controlled drug, but there are anecdotal reports of its misuse and abuse as well as reports of withdrawal symptoms associated with abrupt discontinuation. The risk of gabapentin misuse is inconsistent, the magnitude of the risk is small, and the risk is not comparable to the much higher risks associated with alcohol use; benzodiazepine, opioid, and stimulant drug use; or illicit drug use. Reports of gabapentin misuse are not unique to this drug, as misuse of prescription medications not typically considered "drugs of abuse" can also occur.

The effects of gabapentin on severity of post spinal anesthesia headache

Spinal anesthesia is a common anesthesia method and post dural puncture headache (PDPH) is one of its most common adverse effects. Gabapentin is a popular anticonvulsant drug that has been used as an oral nonopioid analgesic in recent years. In this placebo-controlled double-blind study, 120 patients were randomized in two equal groups (Placebo or gabapentin). The patients in the gabapentin group received gabapentin 300 mg orally one hour before the surgery and then every 12 hours for the first 24 hours after the surgery while the placebo group received placebos in the same way. Severity of headache and postoperative pain assessed by verbal rating score for pain (VRSP), morphine consumption, nausea, vomiting, somnolence, pruritus, dizziness in the first 48 hours, hypertension, hypotension, bradycardia and tachycardia in the first 24 hours after the surgery were recorded. In first 48 hour after surgery the mean of severity of headache in the gabapentin group was 0.20±0.05, and in the placebo group it was 0.93±0.01. The mean of postoperative pain in the gabapentin group was2.25±0.793, and in the placebo group it was3.77±0.813. In the first 24 hours post operative the mean of morphine consumptions were 0.20±0.030 and 0.32±0.0 30 mg in gabapentin and placebo groups. No significant differences were found between the two groups regarding incidence rate of the adverse effects. In this study, administration of gabapentin decreased the incidence and severity of post spinal anesthesia headache, postoperative pain and morphine consumption, without any significant differences in serious adverse effects.

Comparative safety and tolerability of duloxetine vs. pregabalin vs. duloxetine plus gabapentin in patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain

OBJECTIVE

The safety and tolerability of three treatments for diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP) were compared.

METHODS

A 12-week, randomized, open-label study confirming the non-inferiority of duloxetine (N = 138) vs. pregabalin (N = 134) and the combination of duloxetine plus gabapentin (N = 135) as the primary outcome was previously published. Patients had an inadequate pain response to a stable dose of gabapentin (≥ 900 mg/day) for ≥ 5 weeks prior to study enrolment. Data from that study were assessed in this current analysis for a detailed report of safety and tolerability.

RESULTS

Completion rates did not differ significantly between the groups. Discontinuation because of adverse events was significantly greater in the duloxetine (19.6%) vs. pregabalin group (10.4%; p = 0.04); no differences emerged between the duloxetine vs. duloxetine plus gabapentin (13.3%) groups (p = 0.19) or pregabalin vs. duloxetine plus gabapentin groups (p = 0.57). Adverse event rates varied: nausea, insomnia, hyperhidrosis and decreased appetite were reported significantly more often in patients treated with duloxetine vs. patients treated with pregabalin (each p ≤ 0.01); insomnia significantly more in patients treated with duloxetine vs. duloxetine plus gabapentin (p = 0.01); peripheral oedema significantly more in patients treated with pregabalin vs. duloxetine and duloxetine plus gabapentin (p ≤ 0.001 each) and nausea, hyperhidrosis, decreased appetite and vomiting significantly more in patients treated with duloxetine plus gabapentin vs. pregabalin (each p ≤ 0.05). At end-point, weight change differed significantly among treatment groups: patients in the pregabalin group on average gained weight (1.0 ± 0.04 kg); while, patients in the duloxetine and duloxetine plus gabapentin groups on average lost weight (-2.39 ± 0.04 and -1.06 ± 0.04 kg, respectively) (pregabalin vs. duloxetine, p ≤ 0.001; pregabalin vs. duloxetine plus gabapentin, p ≤ 0.001; duloxetine vs. duloxetine plus gabapentin, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Duloxetine, pregabalin and duloxetine plus gabapentin were generally safe and tolerable for the treatment of DPNP.

Efficacy and safety of gabapentin for treatment of postherpetic neuralgia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) is a common type of neuropathic pain occurring after resolution of herpes zoster rash. Although gabapentin is a widely used treatment, some disagreements exist about its efficacy and safety. Meta-analysis was performed to better evaluate the efficacy and safety of gabapentin for management of PHN.

METHODS

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of gabapentin to treat PHN were identified by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases. Searches were restricted to studies published in English.

RESULTS

Seven trials involving a total of 2039 participants were identified. Pooled analysis showed that gabapentin reduced PHN-related pain significantly more than placebo (mean difference, MD=-0.89, 95% CI -1.58 to -0.18, P<0.001). Gabapentin reduced pain below baseline by at least 50% in significantly more patients than did placebo (RR=1.59, 95% CI 1.35 to 1.88, P<0.001). Gabapentin was significantly more likely than placebo to lead patients to rate their global impression of change as "much improved" or "very much improved" (RR=1.82, 95% CI 1.41 to 2.35, P=0.003). Gabapentin also improved sleep quality significantly more than did placebo (MD=-0.62, 95% CI -0.67 to -0.57, P<0.001). On the other hand, patients given gabapentin were significantly more likely to experience dizziness, somnolence, peripheral edema, ataxia or gait disturbance and diarrhea. Subgroup analysis on formulation of gabapentin showed that gabapentin enacarbil had similar efficacy of pain relief with other formulations while it may be superior to others in term of compliance and safety.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis indicates that gabapentin is an effective and well-tolerated treatment for patients with PHN.

Gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

This review is an update of a review published in 2011, itself a major update of previous reviews published in 2005 and 2000, investigating the effects of gabapentin in chronic neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage). Antiepileptic drugs are used to manage chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of gabapentin in chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified randomised trials of gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia by searching the databases MEDLINE (1966 to March 2014), EMBASE (1980 to 2014 week 10), and CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library (Issue 3 of 12, 2014). We obtained clinical trial reports and synopses of published and unpublished studies from Internet sources, and searched Clinicaltrials.gov. Searches were run originally in 2011 and the date of the most recent search was 17 March 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind studies reporting the analgesic and adverse effects of gabapentin in neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia with assessment of pain intensity, pain relief, or both, using validated scales. Participants were adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently extracted efficacy and adverse event data, examined issues of study quality, and assessed risk of bias. We performed analysis using three tiers of evidence. First tier evidence derived from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction, intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for dropouts; at least 200 participants in the comparison, 8 to 12 weeks duration, parallel design), second tier from data that failed to meet one or more of these criteria and were considered at some risk of bias but with adequate numbers in the comparison, and third tier from data involving small numbers of participants that were considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both.For efficacy, we calculated the number needed to treat to benefit (NNT), concentrating on at least 50% pain intensity reduction, and Initiative on Methods, Measurement and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) definitions of at least moderate and substantial benefit. For harm we calculated number needed to treat for harm (NNH) for adverse effects and withdrawal. Meta-analysis was undertaken using a fixed-effect model. We emphasised differences between conditions now defined as neuropathic pain, and other conditions like masticatory pain, complex regional painsyndrome type 1 (CRPS-1), and fibromyalgia.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven new studies with 1919 participants were added. Another report (147 participants) provided results for a study already included, but which previously had no usable data. A further report (170 participants) used an experimental formulation of intrathecal gabapentin. Thirty-seven studies (5633 participants) studied oral gabapentin at daily doses of 1200 mg or more in 12 chronic pain conditions; 84% of participants were in studies of postherpetic neuralgia, painful diabetic neuropathy or mixed neuropathic pain. There was no first tier evidence.Second tier evidence for the outcome of at least 50% pain intensity reduction, considered valuable by patients with chronic pain, showed that gabapentin was significantly better than placebo in postherpetic neuralgia (34% gabapentin versus 21% placebo; NNT 8.0, 95% CI 6.0 to 12) and painful diabetic neuropathy (38% versus 21%, NNT 5.9, 95% CI 4.6 to 8.3). There was insufficient information in other pain conditions to reach any reliable conclusion. There was no obvious difference between standard gabapentin formulations and recently-introduced extended-release or gastro-retentive formulations, or between different doses of gabapentin.Adverse events occurred significantly more often with gabapentin. Persons taking gabapentin could expect to have at least one adverse event (62%), withdraw because of an adverse event (11%), suffer dizziness (19%), somnolence (14%), peripheral oedema (7%), and gait disturbance (9%). Serious adverse events (3%) were no more common than with placebo.There were insufficient data for direct comparisons with other active treatments, and only third tier evidence for other painful conditions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was no top tier evidence that was unequivocally unbiased. Second tier evidence, with potentially important residual biases, showed that gabapentin at doses of 1200 mg or more was effective for some people with some painful neuropathic pain conditions. The outcome of at least 50% pain intensity reduction is regarded as a useful outcome of treatment by patients, and the achievement of this degree of pain relief is associated with important beneficial effects on sleep interference, fatigue, and depression, as well as quality of life, function, and work. About 35% achieved this degree of pain relief with gabapentin, compared with 21% for placebo. Over half of those treated with gabapentin will not have worthwhile pain relief. Results might vary between different neuropathic pain conditions, and the amount of evidence for gabapentin in neuropathic pain conditions except postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy, and in fibromyalgia, is very limited.The levels of efficacy found for gabapentin are consistent with those found for other drug therapies in postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy.

The efficacy of gabapentin in children of partial seizures and the blood levels

AIM

To evaluate the long-term efficacy of gabapentin (GBP) and usefulness of measurement of the blood level for the observation of patients that have partial seizures.

METHODS

Thirty patients (20 effective cases and 10 ineffective cases) treated with GBP for the localization related epilepsy had their peak blood levels of GBP. The levels were measured seven time points, one, 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, and 36month after the start of medication. The efficacy of GBP was evaluated at one month after the initiation of medication and every year for 3years, based on the R Ratio and the degree of improvement for the paroxysmal strength and length.

RESULTS

GBP levels were higher in the effective cases than the levels in the ineffective cases 6months after and 1year after the initiation of medication (p<0.05). The level 6months after the start in the effective cases was 5.429±2.384μg/ml (mean±SD), and 5.837±3.217μg/ml after 1year. The cases that were effective for 1year maintained approximately the same efficacy for 3years after the initiation of medication, but there was no correlation between the level and the R Ratio, paroxysmal strength and length.

CONCLUSIONS

No precise definition of the therapeutic range was recognized because of no correlation between GBP level and the improvement of clinical manifestations. We recommend the GBP optimal range that is established the range within 3-8μg/ml (mean; 5μg/ml) as therapeutic target without the side effect.