Efficacy and tolerability of pregabalin using a flexible, optimized dose schedule in Korean patients with peripheral neuropathic pain: a 10-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study

Xiaoketongbi Formula vs pregabalin for painful diabetic neuropathy: A single-center, randomized, single-blind, double-dummy, and parallel controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

We assessed the efficacy and safety of the Xiaoketongbi Formula (XF) vs. pregabalin in patients with painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN).

METHODS

Patients with PDN (n = 68) were included in a single-center, randomized, single-blind, double-dummy, parallel controlled clinical trial. The primary outcome was the change in the Brief Pain Inventory for Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy (BPI-DPN). Secondary outcomes evaluated included the reduction of BPI-DPN >50%, changes in the numeric rating scale-11 (NRS-11) score for pain, Daily Sleep Interference Diary (DSID), Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), nerve conduction velocity (NCV), and adverse events.

RESULTS

After 10 weeks of treatment, the BPI-DPN score reduced from 42.44 ± 17.56 to 26.47 ± 22.22 and from 52.03 ± 14.30 to 37.85 ± 17.23 in the XF and pregabalin group (Ps  < 0.001), respectively. The difference in the absolute change in BPI-DPN score between both groups was -1.79 (95% CI: -9.09, 5.50; p = 0.625). In the XF and pregabalin groups, 44.1% (15/34) and 20.6% (7/34) of patients reported a BPI-DPN reduction >50% (p = 0.038), respectively. There were no significant differences between groups in NRS-11 and DSID (Ps  > 0.05). A significantly greater number of patients in the XF group felt "significantly improved" or "improved" than in the pregabalin group (35.3% (12/34) vs. 11.8% (4/34), p = 0.045). The absolute change in motor nerve conduction velocity of the right median nerve was significantly different between both groups (XF group 0.7 ± 2.3 vs. pregabalin group -2.2 ± 4.1, p = 0.004). No serious adverse events were reported in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

XF is equivalent to pregabalin in reducing pain symptoms and improves the quality of life in patients with PDN. In addition, XF has the potential to improve nerve function by increasing NCV.

An Insight into Potential Pharmacotherapeutic Agents for Painful Diabetic Neuropathy

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

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

Introduction

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Supplementary Information

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

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

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

Pregabalin and gabapentin in neuropathic pain management after spinal cord injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Neuropathic pain after spinal cord injury (SCI) has a significant negative impact on the patients’ quality of life. The objective of this systematic review is to examine the safety and efficacy of pregabalin (PGB) and gabapentin (GBP) in the treatment of neuropathic pain due to SCI. PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Scopus, and the Web of Science were searched up to December 2018. The reference lists of key and review studies were reviewed for additional citations. The quality of the studies was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tools for assessing the risk of bias. A meta-analysis was performed for primary and secondary outcomes. Eight studies were eligible for inclusion. Meta-analysis of PGB vs. placebo showed that PGB was effective for neuropathic pain (standardized mean difference [SMD] = −0.40; 95% confidence interval [CI]: −0.78, −0.01), anxiety (MD = −0.68; 95% CI: −0.77, −0.59), depression (mean difference [MD] = −0.99; 95% CI: −1.08, −0.89), and sleep interference (MD = −1.08; 95% CI: −1.13, −1.02). Also, GBP was more effective than a placebo for reducing pain. No significant difference was observed between the efficacy of the two drugs (MD = −0.37; 95% CI: −1.67, 0.93). There was no significant difference between the two drugs for discontinuation due to adverse events (risk ratio = 3.00; 95% CI: 0.81, 11.15). PGB and GBP were effective vs. placebos in decreasing neuropathic pain after SCI. Also, there was no significant difference between the two drugs for decreasing pain and adverse events.

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

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

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Lidocaine medicated plaster, an additional potential treatment option for localized post-surgical neuropathic pain: efficacy and safety results of a randomized, placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and safety of lidocaine 700 mg medicated plaster (lidocaine plaster) compared to placebo in patients with moderate to severe chronic post-surgical neuropathic pain (PSNP).

METHODS

Patients (n = 363) with a diagnosis of PSNP for a minimum of 3 months to 36 months were randomized (1:1) to lidocaine plaster or placebo for a 12 week double-blind treatment period. Randomization was stratified as "plaster-only" (no concomitant medication for PSNP) or as "add-on" (stable systemic medication for PSNP). The primary efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline in 24 hour average pain intensity at Week 12, assessed by 11 point numerical rating scale (NRS). The trial was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01752322) and EudraCT (2012-000347-28).

RESULTS

Treatment with lidocaine or placebo plaster led to a clinically relevant reduction in average pain intensity. Pain reduction (least squares mean [LS mean] standard error [SE], [95% confidence interval, CI]) with lidocaine plaster (-1.70 [0.16], [-2.03, -1.38]) was numerically higher than with placebo (-1.47 [0.16], [-1.78, -1.15]) but the difference was not statistically significant (-0.23 [0.23], [-0.69, 0.22]). Pre-specified exploratory subgroup analyses showed the largest differentiation between lidocaine and placebo in patients without concomitant pain medication, and in patients with more than 1 year between surgery and enrollment. Many secondary outcomes showed a numerically larger improvement in favor of lidocaine. The most commonly reported adverse events were administration site reactions linked to topical administration.

CONCLUSIONS

A clinically relevant pain reduction was observed with lidocaine plaster in patients with PSNP. The safety and tolerability profile is consistent with current knowledge.

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

Purpose

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

Patients and methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers

NCT0039490130, NCT0055347522, NCT0040774524

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

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

Pregabalin for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

This review updates part of an earlier Cochrane Review titled "Pregabalin for acute and chronic pain in adults", and considers only neuropathic pain (pain from damage to nervous tissue). Antiepileptic drugs have long been used in pain management. Pregabalin is an antiepileptic drug used in management of chronic pain conditions.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase for randomised controlled trials from January 2009 to April 2018, online clinical trials registries, and reference lists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality and biases. Primary outcomes were: at least 30% pain intensity reduction over baseline; much or very much improved on the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) Scale (moderate benefit); at least 50% pain intensity reduction; or very much improved on PGIC (substantial benefit). We calculated risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial (NNTB) or harmful outcome (NNTH). We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 45 studies lasting 2 to 16 weeks, with 11,906 participants - 68% from 31 new studies. Oral pregabalin doses of 150 mg, 300 mg, and 600 mg daily were compared with placebo. Postherpetic neuralgia, painful diabetic neuropathy, and mixed neuropathic pain predominated (85% of participants). High risk of bias was due mainly to small study size (nine studies), but many studies had unclear risk of bias, mainly due to incomplete outcome data, size, and allocation concealment.Postherpetic neuralgia: More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 300 mg than with placebo (50% vs 25%; RR 2.1 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.6 to 2.6); NNTB 3.9 (3.0 to 5.6); 3 studies, 589 participants, moderate-quality evidence), and more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (32% vs 13%; RR 2.5 (95% CI 1.9 to 3.4); NNTB 5.3 (3.9 to 8.1); 4 studies, 713 participants, moderate-quality evidence). More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 600 mg than with placebo (62% vs 24%; RR 2.5 (95% CI 2.0 to 3.2); NNTB 2.7 (2.2 to 3.7); 3 studies, 537 participants, moderate-quality evidence), and more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (41% vs 15%; RR 2.7 (95% CI 2.0 to 3.5); NNTB 3.9 (3.1 to 5.5); 4 studies, 732 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Somnolence and dizziness were more common with pregabalin than with placebo (moderate-quality evidence): somnolence 300 mg 16% versus 5.5%, 600 mg 25% versus 5.8%; dizziness 300 mg 29% versus 8.1%, 600 mg 35% versus 8.8%.Painful diabetic neuropathy: More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 300 mg than with placebo (47% vs 42%; RR 1.1 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.2); NNTB 22 (12 to 200); 8 studies, 2320 participants, moderate-quality evidence), more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (31% vs 24%; RR 1.3 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.5); NNTB 22 (12 to 200); 11 studies, 2931 participants, moderate-quality evidence), and more had PGIC much or very much improved (51% vs 30%; RR 1.8 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.0); NNTB 4.9 (3.8 to 6.9); 5 studies, 1050 participants, moderate-quality evidence). More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 600 mg than with placebo (63% vs 52%; RR 1.2 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.4); NNTB 9.6 (5.5 to 41); 2 studies, 611 participants, low-quality evidence), and more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (41% vs 28%; RR 1.4 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.7); NNTB 7.8 (5.4 to 14); 5 studies, 1015 participants, low-quality evidence). Somnolence and dizziness were more common with pregabalin than with placebo (moderate-quality evidence): somnolence 300 mg 11% versus 3.1%, 600 mg 15% versus 4.5%; dizziness 300 mg 13% versus 3.8%, 600 mg 22% versus 4.4%.Mixed or unclassified post-traumatic neuropathic pain: More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 600 mg than with placebo (48% vs 36%; RR 1.2 (1.1 to 1.4); NNTB 8.2 (5.7 to 15); 4 studies, 1367 participants, low-quality evidence), and more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (34% vs 20%; RR 1.5 (1.2 to 1.9); NNTB 7.2 (5.4 to 11); 4 studies, 1367 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Somnolence (12% vs 3.9%) and dizziness (23% vs 6.2%) were more common with pregabalin.Central neuropathic pain: More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 600 mg than with placebo (44% vs 28%; RR 1.6 (1.3 to 2.0); NNTB 5.9 (4.1 to 11); 3 studies, 562 participants, low-quality evidence) and at least 50% pain intensity reduction (26% vs 15%; RR 1.7 (1.2 to 2.3); NNTB 9.8 (6.0 to 28); 3 studies, 562 participants, low-quality evidence). Somnolence (32% vs 11%) and dizziness (23% vs 8.6%) were more common with pregabalin.Other neuropathic pain conditions: Studies show no evidence of benefit for 600 mg pregabalin in HIV neuropathy (2 studies, 674 participants, moderate-quality evidence) and limited evidence of benefit in neuropathic back pain or sciatica, neuropathic cancer pain, or polyneuropathy.Serious adverse events, all conditions: Serious adverse events were no more common with placebo than with pregabalin 300 mg (3.1% vs 2.6%; RR 1.2 (95% CI 0.8 to 1.7); 17 studies, 4112 participants, high-quality evidence) or pregabalin 600 mg (3.4% vs 3.4%; RR 1.1 (95% CI 0.8 to 1.5); 16 studies, 3995 participants, high-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence shows efficacy of pregabalin in postherpetic neuralgia, painful diabetic neuralgia, and mixed or unclassified post-traumatic neuropathic pain, and absence of efficacy in HIV neuropathy; evidence of efficacy in central neuropathic pain is inadequate. Some people will derive substantial benefit with pregabalin; more will have moderate benefit, but many will have no benefit or will discontinue treatment. There were no substantial changes since the 2009 review.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN

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

PARTICIPANTS

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

INTERVENTIONS

Pregabalin or placebo.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

AIM

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

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Pregabalin for Neuropathic Pain: Why Benefits Could Be Expected for Multiple Pain Conditions

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Limited research exists to support the extrapolation of the analgesic efficacy of pregabalin from one neuropathic pain condition to another. This retrospective analysis evaluated similarities in the efficacy of pregabalin for treating neuropathic pain associated with post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN), diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN), and spinal cord injury (SCI) in a Japanese population, as a basis for considering the extrapolation of these data to other neuropathic pain conditions.

METHODS

Data were analysed across pregabalin doses within each pain condition, from three comparable 13- to 16-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) and the corresponding 52-week, open-label extension trials of pregabalin in Japanese patients with PHN, DPN or SCI. Efficacy outcomes in the RCTs included endpoint and weekly mean pain and sleep interference scores; endpoint proportions of responders in pain; Patient Global Impression of Change scores; and 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) scores or Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) assessments. Study discontinuation rates were compared between treatment groups. The extension trials assessed pain intensity, using the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire.

RESULTS

In the RCTs for all pain conditions, significant improvements in comparison with placebo in mean pain and sleep interference scores were evident after 1 week with pregabalin and were sustained throughout the treatment periods (p < 0.05). At the study endpoint, in comparison with placebo, a significantly greater percentage of pregabalin-treated patients experienced a ≥30 % reduction in pain across the RCTs (p < 0.05), and pregabalin significantly improved six of 16 SF-36 subscale scores in the PHN and DPN trials (p < 0.05). In the SCI trial, pregabalin-treated patients had numerically better outcomes of HADS scores. In the extension trials, improvements in pain intensity were maintained over a 52-week period.

CONCLUSION

Similarities in the pregabalin efficacy profiles, including time to onset and magnitude of response, were confirmed regardless of the neuropathic pain condition. These data support the potential for extrapolating analgesic efficacy to other neuropathic pain conditions. CLINICALTRIALS.

GOV IDENTIFIERS

NCT00394901, NCT00553475, NCT00407745, NCT00424372, NCT00553280, NCT01202227.

A study on comparative efficacy and cost effectiveness of Pregabalin and Duloxetine used in diabetic neuropathic pain

AIM

The study was designed for comparing the efficacy and cost effectiveness of Pregabalin and Duloxetine used in Diabetic Neuropathic Pain.

METHODS

The prospective interventional 6 month study was conducted in a diabetic clinic of a 500 bedded tertiary care hospital in South India. The subjects having diagnosed with diabetic neuropathy and not treated with Pregabalin and Duloxetine or any other drugs of its class were selected. The data were collected using NPS and Neuro QoL questionnaires. The cost of both drugs used in the study was calculated as the mean of the price of 3 leading common brands of those drugs. The comparative efficacy was calculated by comparing the mean difference produced by both drugs in NPS and QoL scores. The cost effectiveness were calculated by ICER ratio.

RESULTS

The results have shown a significant improvement in the mean difference of NPS and Neuro QoL scores of both Pregabalin (p=<0.001) and Duloxetine (p=<0.001) before and after the therapy, the Duloxetine dominates over Pregabalin in both. The mean cost of Pregabalin for 3 months therapy was found to be INR 668.7 and that for Duloxetine was INR 756. Duloxetine showed a better effect but more expensive. ICER ratio was calculated and found that a cost of INR 61.47 per extra QoL gained by Duloxetine.

CONCLUSION

The study have revealed that, both drugs are found to be effective.On conducting cost effective analysis, a significant better improvement in QoL of patients was obtained by Duloxetine with comparatively mild increase in the price.

A randomized double-blind, placebo-, and active-controlled study of T-type calcium channel blocker ABT-639 in patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text.

Treatment with ABT-639 100 mg for 6 weeks did not significantly reduce pain in patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathy.

T-type Ca_v3.2 calcium channels represent a novel target for neuropathic pain modulation. Preclinical studies with ABT-639, a peripherally acting highly selective T-type Ca_v3.2 calcium channel blocker, showed dose-dependent reduction of pain in multiple pain models. ABT-639 also demonstrated an acceptable safety profile at single- and multiple-dose levels evaluated in a clinical phase 1 study in healthy volunteers. The primary objective of this phase 2, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, and active-controlled study was to compare the analgesic efficacy and safety of ABT-639 with placebo in the treatment of diabetic neuropathic pain. Pregabalin, an approved treatment for painful diabetic neuropathy, was included as a positive control. A total of 194 patients were randomized and treated for 6 weeks; 62 patients received ABT-639 (100 mg twice daily), 70 patients received pregabalin (150 mg twice daily), and 62 patients received placebo. When assessing the mean changes from baseline in patient-recorded pain scores at the end of week 6, there was no significant difference observed for ABT-639 compared with placebo (−2.28 vs −2.36; P = 0.582). Pregabalin treatment resulted in a transient improvement in pain compared with placebo, which did not persist throughout the study. There were no significant safety issues identified with ABT-639. A majority of adverse events were considered mild to moderate in intensity. In conclusion, treatment with the highly selective T-type Ca_v3.2 calcium channel blocker ABT-639 100 mg twice daily for 6 weeks showed no safety signals that would preclude further investigation but did not reduce neuropathic pain in patients with diabetes (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01345045).

Effect of pregabalin on contextual memory deficits and inflammatory state-related protein expression in streptozotocin-induced diabetic mice

Diabetes mellitus is a metabolic disease characterized by hyperglycemia due to defects in insulin secretion or its action. Complications from long-term diabetes consist of numerous biochemical, molecular, and functional tissue alterations, including inflammation, oxidative stress, and neuropathic pain. There is also a link between diabetes mellitus and vascular dementia or Alzheimer’s disease. Hence, it is important to treat diabetic complications using drugs which do not aggravate symptoms induced by the disease itself. Pregabalin is widely used for the treatment of diabetic neuropathic pain, but little is known about its impact on cognition or inflammation-related proteins in diabetic patients. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the effect of intraperitoneal (ip) pregabalin on contextual memory and the expression of inflammatory state-related proteins in the brains of diabetic, streptozotocin (STZ)-treated mice. STZ (200 mg/kg, ip) was used to induce diabetes mellitus. To assess the impact of pregabalin (10 mg/kg) on contextual memory, a passive avoidance task was applied. Locomotor and exploratory activities in pregabalin-treated diabetic mice were assessed by using activity cages. Using Western blot analysis, the expression of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2), cytosolic prostaglandin E synthase (cPGES), nuclear factor (erythroid-derived 2)-like 2 (Nrf2), nuclear factor-ĸB (NF-ĸB) p50 and p65, aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR), as well as glucose transporter type-4 (GLUT4) was assessed in mouse brains after pregabalin treatment. Pregabalin did not aggravate STZ-induced learning deficits in vivo or influence animals’ locomotor activity. We observed significantly lower expression of COX-2, cPGES, and NF-κB p50 subunit, and higher expression of AhR and Nrf2 in the brains of pregabalin-treated mice in comparison to STZ-treated controls, which suggested immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory effects of pregabalin. Antioxidant properties of pregabalin in the brains of diabetic animals were also demonstrated. Pregabalin does not potentiate STZ-induced cognitive decline, and it has antioxidant, immunomodulatory, and anti-inflammatory properties in mice. These results confirm the validity of its use in diabetic patients.

Graphical abstract

Pregabalin for chronic pain: does one medication fit all?

BACKGROUND

Pregabalin is frequently prescribed for chronic non-cancer pain. No previous study has examined its off-label use.

OBJECTIVES

Our primary aim was to assess the proportion of patients taking pregabalin for conditions approved by Health Canada ('on-label') and compare their perspectives on its use to those who use pregabalin for other conditions ('off-label').

METHODS

Patients who have used pregabalin within the past year were recruited from two registries of chronic non-cancer pain patients treated in tertiary care clinics: the Quebec Pain Registry and the Fibromyalgia Patients Registry. Data on the use of pregabalin and its perceived benefits were collected from the registries and from completed questionnaires.

RESULTS

Out of 4339 screened chronic non-cancer pain patients, 355 (8.18%) met the study selection criteria. Three-quarters of them (268/355) used pregabalin for pain conditions not approved by Health Canada and were therefore regarded as off-label users. The most prevalent condition for pregabalin use was lumbar back pain (103/357; 28.85%). There were no significant differences between on- and off-label users in their perceived satisfaction from pregabalin therapy and its effect on function and quality of life. Among former users, the most prevalent reason for discontinuation was adverse effects, mainly dry mouth and weight gain.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that despite specific indications for pregabalin prescription, it is mainly used off-label, notably for low back pain. Nevertheless, off-label users were equally satisfied with its clinical effects. Although formal exploration of the broader analgesic properties of pregabalin is warranted, treating heterogeneous chronic pain conditions with pregabalin may be legitimate.

LIMITATIONS

The main limitations of the study are patients' low response rate, the recruitment of participants solely from a tertiary pain center and not from the general patient population and a possible recall bias that may have arisen from the retrospective nature of the study.

A comprehensive drug safety evaluation of pregabalin in peripheral neuropathic pain

Pregabalin is a commonly used therapy currently recommended as first-line treatment for a number of neuropathic pain (NeP) conditions. Since licensure, a number of clinical trials of pregabalin in different NeP conditions have been completed from which additional data on safety and tolerability can be drawn. In this analysis, patient-level data from 31 randomized clinical trials of pregabalin in peripheral NeP sponsored by Pfizer were pooled and assessed for incidence of adverse events (AEs). Incidence by age, disease condition, and race, together with risk differences and time to onset and resolution of AEs, was assessed. In total, 7,510 patients were included: 4,884 on pregabalin (representing 805 patient-years treatment) and 2,626 on placebo. Pregabalin vs. placebo risk analysis identified 9 AEs with a risk difference, for which the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) was > 1%: dizziness (risk difference [95% CI]: (17.0 [15.4 to 18.6]), somnolence (10.8 [9.5 to 12.1]), peripheral edema (5.4 [4.3 to 6.4]), weight increase (4.7 [3.9 to 5.5]), dry mouth (2.9 [2.1 to 3.8]), constipation (2.3 [1.5 to 3.2]), blurred vision (2.2 [1.6 to 2.9]), balance disorder (2.0 [1.5 to 2.5]), and euphoric mood (1.6 [1.2 to 2.0]). The most common AEs, dizziness and somnolence, typically emerged within the first 1 to 2 weeks of treatment and resolved 1 to 2 weeks later, without resulting in cessation of treatment. The data from this review provide information, indicating which AEs may be expected in patients treated with pregabalin, and suggest that careful dose titration to the highest tolerable dose is the most appropriate approach in clinical practice.

Clinical experience with desvenlafaxine in treatment of pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy

Purpose

To assess the safety and efficacy of the serotonin–norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor desvenlafaxine in adults with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN).

ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers

NCT00283842, NCT01050218.

Patients and methods

This was a 13-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, fixed-dose study of desvenlafaxine in adults with painful DPN. The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline in numeric rating scale (NRS) score. Patients who completed the 13-week trial could continue in a 9-month open-label, flexible-dose extension study.

Results

A total of 412 patients were randomized to treatment with placebo or desvenlafaxine 50, 100, 200, or 400 mg/day. Of those, 240 patients continued in the extension study. After a planned interim analysis, conducted when the first 225 patients had completed 6 weeks of treatment in the short-term study, randomization to the 50 mg or 400 mg doses was stopped. At week 13, the mean change from baseline in NRS score was significantly greater compared with placebo in the desvenlafaxine 200 mg (difference [95% confidence interval {CI}]: 1.10 [0.50 to 1.70]; P<0.001) and 400 mg groups (0.91 [95% CI: 0.23 to 1.59]; P=0.027); differences from placebo were not statistically significant for the 50 mg (0.58 [95% CI: −0.08 to 1.25]) and 100 mg (0.59 [95% CI: –0.03 to 1.21]) groups. Nausea and dizziness were the most common treatment-emergent adverse events reported in the short-term study, and the most common adverse events leading to discontinuation in the short-term study and the extension. Adverse events rates were dose-dependent in the short-term studies.

Conclusion

Desvenlafaxine was effective in relieving pain associated with DPN at doses of 200 and 400 mg/day, and improved activity impairment at all doses assessed. Desvenlafaxine was generally well-tolerated in the short-term and long-term studies.

Factors predicting adverse events associated with pregabalin administered for neuropathic pain relief

BACKGROUND

Pregabalin administration is occasionally abandoned due to adverse events such as somnolence, dizziness, unsteadiness, weight gain and edema. However, the exact causes of these differences in adverse events associated with pregabalin have not been elucidated.

OBJECTIVE

To identify factors predicting adverse events associated with pregabalin administered for neuropathic pain.

METHODS

The present study was a retrospective analysis involving 208&nbsp;patients with neuropathic pain who had been treated with pregabalin in the pain clinic at the authors' hospital between July 2010 and September 2011. Variables were extracted from the clinical records for regression analysis of factors related to the occurrence of adverse events associated with pregabalin administration. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to examine the relationship between various predictive factors and the adverse events.

RESULTS

Predictive factors were: duration of therapy (OR 1.684&nbsp;[95%&nbsp;CI 1.179 to 2.406]; P=0.0042) for somnolence; nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (OR 0.132 [95% CI 0.030 to 0.578]; P=0.0072), age (OR 3.137 [95% CI 1.220 to 8.066]; P=0.0177) and maintenance dose (OR 0.437 [95% CI 0.217 to 0.880]; P=0.0205) for unsteadiness; serum creatinine (OR 6.439&nbsp;[95% CI 1.541 to 26.902]; P=0.0107) for body weight gain; and neurotropin (OR 8.538 [95% CI 1.159 to 62.901]; P=0.0353) and serum creatinine (OR 6.912 [95% CI 1.118 to 42.726]; P=0.0375) for edema.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the present study indicate that care is warranted regarding long durations of therapy for somnolence, advanced age rather than dose-dependent adverse events for unsteadiness, elevated serum creatinine level for weight gain, and elevated serum creatinine level and combination use of neurotropin for edema. The safety of the combined use of pregabalin and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were also suggested.

Pregabalin in neuropathic pain: evidences and possible mechanisms

Pregabalin is an antagonist of voltage gated Ca2+ channels and specifically binds to alpha-2-delta subunit to produce antiepileptic and analgesic actions. It successfully alleviates the symptoms of various types of neuropathic pain and presents itself as a first line therapeutic agent with remarkable safety and efficacy. Preclinical studies in various animal models of neuropathic pain have shown its effectiveness in treating the symptoms like allodynia and hyperalgesia. Clinical studies in different age groups and in different types of neuropathic pain (peripheral diabetic neuropathy, fibromyalgia, post-herpetic neuralgia, cancer chemotherapy-induced neuropathic pain) have projected it as the most effective agent either as monotherapy or in combined regimens in terms of cost effectiveness, tolerability and overall improvement in neuropathic pain states. Preclinical studies employing pregabalin in different neuropathic pain models have explored various molecular targets and the signaling systems including Ca2+ channel-mediated neurotransmitter release, activation of excitatory amino acid transporters (EAATs), potassium channels and inhibition of pathways involving inflammatory mediators. The present review summarizes the important aspects of pregabalin as analgesic in preclinical and clinical studies as well as focuses on the possible mechanisms.

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

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

Ion channels as drug targets in central nervous system disorders

Ion channel targeted drugs have always been related with either the central nervous system (CNS), the peripheral nervous system, or the cardiovascular system. Within the CNS, basic indications of drugs are: sleep disorders, anxiety, epilepsy, pain, etc. However, traditional channel blockers have multiple adverse events, mainly due to low specificity of mechanism of action. Lately, novel ion channel subtypes have been discovered, which gives premises to drug discovery process led towards specific channel subtypes. An example is Na(+) channels, whose subtypes 1.3 and 1.7-1.9 are responsible for pain, and 1.1 and 1.2 - for epilepsy. Moreover, new drug candidates have been recognized. This review is focusing on ion channels subtypes, which play a significant role in current drug discovery and development process. The knowledge on channel subtypes has developed rapidly, giving new nomenclatures of ion channels. For example, Ca(2+)s channels are not any more divided to T, L, N, P/Q, and R, but they are described as Ca(v)1.1-Ca(v)3.3, with even newer nomenclature α1A-α1I and α1S. Moreover, new channels such as P2X1-P2X7, as well as TRPA1-TRPV1 have been discovered, giving premises for new types of analgesic drugs.

Evaluation of analgesic, antioxidant, cytotoxic and metabolic effects of pregabalin for the use in neuropathic pain

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this research was to evaluate analgesic, antioxidant, metabolic, and cytotoxic effects of pregabalin (PGB), which is widely applied for the treatment of neuropathic pain syndromes in diabetic patients.

METHODS

We used the streptozotocin (STZ) model of painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) in mice and we measured the effect of intraperitoneally administered PGB on tactile and thermal nociceptive thresholds in the von Frey and hot plate assays, respectively. The influence of PGB on the motor coordination of diabetic animals was investigated in the rotarod test. In vitro in HepG2 and 3T3-L1 cell lines cytotoxicity of PGB, its influence on glucose utilization, and lipid accumulation were assessed. The antioxidant capacity of PGB was evaluated spectrophotometrically using 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) radical method.

RESULTS

Pregabalin was a very efficacious antiallodynic and analgesic drug capable of increasing the pain thresholds for tactile allodynia and thermal hyperalgesia in diabetic mice. In the von Frey test at a dose of 30 mg/kg it elevated the pain threshold for 168% versus diabetic control and in the hot plate test this dose prolonged the latency time to pain reaction for 130% versus control value of diabetic mice. No motor deficits were observed in PGB-treated diabetic animals. In vitro PGB did not influence glucose utilization or lipid accumulation. No antioxidant or cytotoxic effects of PGB were observed at concentrations 1-100 μM.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Our experiments demonstrated significant antiallodynic and analgesic properties of PGB in mice. In vitro studies showed that this drug is metabolically neutral. It did not cause motor coordination impairments in diabetic animals either. These effects might be of great importance for diabetic patients.

Cost-utility of pregabalin as add-on to usual care versus usual care alone in the management of peripheral neuropathic pain in Belgium

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The cost effectiveness of pregabalin as an add-on to the standard treatment of Belgian patients with post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN) had been demonstrated in a previously published Markov model. The purpose of this study was to update that model with more recent cost data and clinical evidence, and reevaluate the cost effectiveness from the payer's perspective of add-on pregabalin in a wider set of NeP conditions.

METHODS

The model, featuring 4-week cycles and a 1-year time horizon, consisted in four possible health states: mild, moderate or severe pain and withdrawn from therapy. Three versions of the model were developed, using transition probabilities derived from pain scores reported in three placebo-controlled studies. The two treatment arms were 'usual care' or 'usual care + pregabalin'. Resource use and utility data were obtained from a chart review and unit costs from recent published data. The final outcome of the model was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained when adding pregabalin to standard care.

RESULTS

Based on 1000 simulations, two versions of the model showed that pregabalin was dominant respectively in 94.8% and 67.2% of the simulations, while the incremental cost per QALY was below €32,000/QALY in respectively 99.1% and 94.6% of the simulations. The third version did not show cost effectiveness, despite an incremental cost of only €300 after 1 year. However, in the corresponding study, patients seemed less responsive to GABA analogs, since 55% of them had failed to respond to gabapentin before study inclusion.

LIMITATIONS

The studies upon which the model is based have a short follow-up time as compared to the model horizon. The endpoints of two studies were only provided at the aggregated level and do not necessarily reflect the real practice.

CONCLUSION

Based on this analysis, it can be concluded that from a Belgium payer perspective pregabalin offers a slight increase in quality of life in the studied populations as compared to standard care. Pregabalin is cost effective in the majority of cases except in one published clinical study, despite a low incremental cost per year (€300).

Diabetic peripheral neuropathy in type 2 diabetes mellitus in Korea

Diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN), a common and troublesome complication in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), contributes to a higher risk of diabetic foot ulcer and lower limb amputation. These situations can negatively impact the quality of life of affected individuals. Despite its high prevalence and clinical importance, most diabetes mellitus patients not only do not recognize the presence of diabetic neuropathy, but also do not report their symptoms to physicians or other health care providers. Therefore, DPN is usually under diagnosed and undertreated. For early detection and appropriate intervention for DPN, a careful history, physical with neurologic examination, and prompt treatment are needed in T2DM patients.