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

Reimagining old drugs with new tricks: Mechanisms, strategies and notable success stories in drug repurposing for neurological diseases

Recent evolution in drug repurposing has brought new anticipation, especially in the conflict against neurodegenerative diseases (NDDs). The traditional approach to developing novel drugs for these complex disorders is laborious, time-consuming, and often abortive. However, drug reprofiling which is the implementation of illuminating novel therapeutic applications of existing approved drugs, has shown potential as a promising strategy to accelerate the hunt for therapeutics. The advancement of computational approaches and artificial intelligence has expedited drug repurposing. These progressive technologies have enabled scientists to analyse extensive datasets and predict potential drug-disease interactions. By prospecting into the existing pharmacological knowledge, scientists can recognise potential therapeutic candidates for reprofiling, saving precious time and resources. Preclinical models have also played a pivotal role in this field, confirming the effectiveness and mechanisms of action of repurposed drugs. Several studies have occurred in recent years, including the discovery of available drugs that demonstrate significant protective effects in NDDs, relieve debilitating symptoms, or slow down the progression of the disease. These findings highlight the potential of repurposed drugs to change the landscape of NDD treatment. Here, we present an overview of recent developments and major advances in drug repurposing intending to provide an in-depth analysis of traditional drug discovery and the strategies, approaches and technologies that have contributed to drug repositioning. In addition, this chapter attempts to highlight successful case studies of drug repositioning in various therapeutic areas related to NDDs and explore the clinical trials, challenges and limitations faced by researchers in the field. Finally, the importance of drug repositioning in drug discovery and development and its potential to address discontented medical needs is also highlighted.

A randomized, active-controlled, parallel, open-label, multicenter, phase 4 study to compare the efficacy and safety of pregabalin sustained release tablet and pregabalin immediate release capsule in type II diabetic patients with peripheral neuropathic pain

BACKGROUND

Diabetic peripheral polyneuropathy is the most common chronic complication of type 2 diabetes. Neuropathic pain is challenging to manage, and various drugs are required to control it, decreasing treatment adherence. Pregabalin, a ligand that binds to alpha-2-delta subunits of the presynaptic calcium channel, has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of diabetic neuropathic pain. In this study, we will compare the efficacy, safety, treatment satisfaction, and compliance between pregabalin sustained-release (SR) tablets and pregabalin immediate-release (IR) capsules in type 2 diabetic patients with peripheral neuropathic pain.

METHODS

This study is a randomized, active-controlled, parallel, open-label, multicenter, phase 4 clinical trial (trial registration NCT05624853). Type 2 diabetic patients with glycosylated hemoglobin below 10% and peripheral neuropathic pain who have been taking pregabalin 150 mg/d or more for more than 4 weeks will be randomly assigned to pregabalin SR tablet (150 mg once a day, n = 65) or pregabalin IR capsule (75 mg twice a day, n = 65) therapy for 8 weeks. The primary outcome will be the efficacy of SR pregabalin after 8 weeks of treatment, which will be assessed by visual analog scale measurements. The secondary outcomes will include changes in several parameters, such as quality of life, treatment satisfaction, quality of sleep, and drug compliance.

DISCUSSION

In thus study, we aim to demonstrate that pregabalin SR tablets are associated with better compliance and satisfaction compared with pregabalin IR capsules, despite similar efficacy.

[Diabetic neuropathy and diabetic foot syndrome (update 2023)]

These are the guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of diabetic neuropathy and diabetic foot.The position statement summarizes characteristic clinical symptoms and techniques for diagnostic assessment of diabetic neuropathy, including the complex situation of the diabetic foot syndrome. Recommendations for the therapeutic management of diabetic neuropathy, especially for the control of pain in sensorimotor neuropathy, are provided. The needs to prevent and treat diabetic foot syndrome are summarized.

Outpatient Oral Neuropathic Pain Management with Photobiomodulation Therapy: A Prospective Analgesic Pharmacotherapy-Paralleled Feasibility Trial

Neuropathic pain (NP) can be challenging to treat effectively as analgesic pharmacotherapy (MED) can reduce pain, but the majority of patients do not experience complete pain relief. Our pilot approach is to assess the feasibility and efficacy of an evidence-based photobiomodulation (PBM) intervention protocol. This would be as an alternative to paralleled standard analgesic MED for modulating NP intensity-related physical function and quality of life (QoL) prospectively in a mixed neurological primary burning mouth syndrome and oral iatrogenic neuropathy study population (n = 28). The study group assignments and outcome evaluation strategy/location depended on the individual patient preferences and convenience rather than on randomisation. Our prospective parallel study aimed to evaluate the possible pre/post-benefit of PBM and to allow for a first qualitative comparison with MED, various patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) based on Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT-II) were used for up to a nine-month follow-up period in both intervention groups (PBM and MED). The PBM protocol applied to the PBM group was as follows: λ810 nm, 200 mW, 0.088 cm2, 30 s/point, 9 trigger and affected points, twice a week for five consecutive weeks, whereas the MED protocol followed the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines. Our results showed that despite the severe and persistent nature of the symptoms of 57.50 ± 47.93 months at baseline in the PBM group, a notably rapid reduction in PISmax on VAS from 7.6 at baseline (T0) to 3.9 at one-month post-treatment (T3) could be achieved. On the other hand, mean PISmax was only reduced from 8.2 at baseline to 6.8 at T3 in the MED group. Our positive PBM findings furthermore support more patients' benefits in improving QoL and functional activities, which were considerably impaired by NP such as: eating, drinking and tasting, whereas the analgesic medication regimens did not. No adverse events were observed in both groups. To the best knowledge of the authors, our study is the first to investigate PBM efficacy as a monotherapy compared to the gold standard analgesic pharmacotherapy. Our positive data proves statistically significant improvements in patient self-reported NP, functionality, psychological profile and QoL at mid- and end-treatment, as well as throughout the follow-up time points (one, three, six and nine months) and sustained up to nine months in the PBM group, compared to the MED group. Our study, for the first time, proves the efficacy and safety of PBM as a potent analgesic in oral NP and as a valid alternative to the gold standard pharmacotherapy approach. Furthermore, we observed long-term pain relief and functional benefits that indicate that PBM modulates NP pathology in a pro-regenerative manner, presumably via antioxidant mechanisms.

Drug tolerability: How much ambiguity can be tolerated? A systematic review of the assessment of tolerability in clinical studies

AIMS

Drug tolerability refers to the degree to which drugs' overt adverse effects can be tolerated by patients. The tolerability profile is of comparative importance to its efficacy and safety, as it largely determines adherence to treatment and ultimately treatment success or failure. However, the term is frequently used imprecisely, and it is unclear if tolerability is limited to subjective patient-reported symptoms or also covers certain objective signs and findings. The aim of this systematic review was to assess how clinical studies define, evaluate and present drug tolerability.

METHODS

The study consisted of a systematic review of clinical studies in PubMed® reporting the term "tolerability".

RESULTS

Eighty clinical studies were screened and 56 studies reporting drug tolerability were retained. None of the retained studies defined events encompassed by the term tolerability by making a distinction between safety and tolerability. Twenty-five studies claimed to evaluate tolerability, but none of them described how to evaluate tolerability from the patient perspective. Most studies (54 out of 56) concluded that the treatment was well tolerated, apparently implying favourable safety. However, none of them actually presented tolerability in terms of a contrast between safety and tolerability.

CONCLUSIONS

Tolerability is used frequently, albeit incorrectly, to refer to a drug's favourable safety profile. Focused evaluation of drug tolerability (i.e., the patient perspective of adverse drug reactions) should become routine. Presentation in regulatory documents, such as risk management plan summaries, product information and patient leaflets should be a continuation of the process of patient-centred healthcare.

Efficacy and Safety of Pregabalin for Fibromyalgia in a Population of Chinese Subjects

PURPOSE

Fibromyalgia (FM) may go underdiagnosed and untreated in China in part due to a lack of awareness and understanding of the condition, and limited available treatments.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This randomized, double-blind, Phase III local registration trial compared the efficacy and safety of pregabalin (flexibly dosed 300-450 mg/day) versus placebo for the management of pain in Chinese adults diagnosed with FM according to American College of Rheumatology 1990 criteria, across 22 centers within China. Patients reported pain score of ≥40 mm on 100-mm scale (from 0 "no pain" to 100 "worst possible pain"). The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline to Week 14 in mean pain score (MPS). Secondary endpoints included measures of sleep and sleep interference. Safety and tolerability were monitored throughout.

RESULTS

Median pregabalin dose was 335 mg/day. A significant reduction from baseline to Week 14 in weekly MPS was seen for patients treated with pregabalin (n=170) versus placebo (n=164) (least-squares mean difference [95% confidence interval]: -0.73 [-1.10 to -0.36]; P=0.0001). Significantly greater proportions of patients experienced ≥30% and ≥50% reductions in MPS at Week 14 with pregabalin versus placebo. Pregabalin-treated subjects demonstrated improvements in measures of sleep and sleep interference. Pregabalin was generally well tolerated. The most common adverse events were dizziness and somnolence; no serious adverse events (SAEs) occurred in pregabalin-treated subjects. Nine placebo-treated subjects experienced SAEs.

CONCLUSION

Pregabalin (300-450 mg/day) is a safe and effective treatment for reducing pain and improving sleep in native Chinese subjects with FM.

CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER

NCT01387607.