Efficacy and Safety of a New Sustained-release Pregabalin Formulation Compared With Immediate-release Pregabalin in Patients With Peripheral Neuropathic Pain: A Randomized Noninferiority Phase 3 Trial

A phase 4 randomized active-controlled clinical study to compare the efficacy and safety of sustained-release pregabalin with immediate-release pregabalin in type 2 diabetic patients with peripheral neuropathic pain

AIMS

The objective of this study was to demonstrate that sustained-release (SR) pregabalin is non-inferior to immediate-release (IR) pregabalin in attenuating diabetic peripheral neuropathic (DPN) pain along with patient satisfaction and compliance.

METHODS

This was an 8-week, randomized, active-controlled, open-label, phase 4 study. Eligible subjects who had been on IR pregabalin for 4 weeks were randomized to 1:1 ratio to either continue with twice-daily IR pregabalin (75 mg), or to switch to once-daily SR pregabalin (150 mg). Primary efficacy endpoint was the change in visual analogue scale (VAS) scores after 8 weeks of treatment compared to baseline in both SR and IR pregabalin groups.

RESULTS

Among 130 randomized subjects, 125 patients were included in full analysis set. For the change in VAS pain score, the least squares (LS) mean were -17.95 (SR pregabalin) and -18.74 (IR pregabalin) and the LS mean difference between both groups was 0.79, with the upper limit of the 95 % confidence interval [-5.99, 7.58] below the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 9.2 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that the new once-daily SR pregabalin formulation is not different to the twice-daily IR pregabalin in alleviating DPN pain, indicating its potential as a promising treatment for DPN pain with a comparable safety profile.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05624853.

Pharmacokinetic properties of a new sustained-release pregabalin tablet in subjects with reduced renal function

A new sustained-release (SR) pregabalin tablet, YHD1119, was formulated for once-daily dosing. In the current study, we aimed to evaluate the pharmacokinetics of YHD1119 tablets in patients with reduced renal function. Subjects were grouped by creatinine clearance: > 60 mL/min/1.73m2 (Cohort A) and 30-60 mL/min/1.73m2 (Cohort B). Eight subjects in Cohort A received a YHD1119 75 mg tablet (Y75T) and a YHD1119 150 mg tablet (Y150T) in each period, and eight subjects in Cohort B received a Y75T. Non-compartment analysis and population pharmacokinetic analysis using a one-compartment model with first-order elimination and first-order absorption with lag time were performed. Sixteen subjects completed the study. The geometric mean ratio (GMR) (90% confidence intervals [CI]) for maximum concentration (Cmax), and area under the concentration-time profile from 0 to the last measurable time (AUClast) after Y75T of Cohort B to those of Y75T of Cohort A were 1.2273 (1.0245-1.4701), and 2.4146 (1.8142-3.2138), respectively. The GMR (90% CI) for Cmax, and AUClast after Y75T of Cohort B to those of Y150T of Cohort A were 0.6476 (0.5229-0.8021), and 1.1471 (0.8418-1.5632), respectively. Simulated steady-steady pregabalin concentrations after once-daily Y75T dosing in subjects with eGFR 45 mL/min/1.73 m2 were within the range of steady-state concentrations simulated after once-daily Y150T dosing in subjects with eGFR 90 mL/min/1.73 m2. The total pregabalin exposure of Y75T in patients with moderate renal impairment was comparable with that of Y150T in subjects with near-normal renal function.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05012436.

Investigational Drugs for the Treatment of Postherpetic Neuralgia: Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

The pharmacological treatment of postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) is unsatisfactory, and there is a clinical need for new approaches. Several drugs under advanced clinical development are addressed in this review. A systematic literature search was conducted in three electronic databases (Medline, Web of Science, Scopus) and in the ClinicalTrials.gov register from 1 January 2016 to 1 June 2023 to identify Phase II, III and IV clinical trials evaluating drugs for the treatment of PHN. A total of 18 clinical trials were selected evaluating 15 molecules with pharmacological actions on nine different molecular targets: Angiotensin Type 2 Receptor (AT2R) antagonism (olodanrigan), Voltage-Gated Calcium Channel (VGCC) α2δ subunit inhibition (crisugabalin, mirogabalin and pregabalin), Voltage-Gated Sodium Channel (VGSC) blockade (funapide and lidocaine), Cyclooxygenase-1 (COX-1) inhibition (TRK-700), Adaptor-Associated Kinase 1 (AAK1) inhibition (LX9211), Lanthionine Synthetase C-Like Protein (LANCL) activation (LAT8881), N-Methyl-D-Aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonism (esketamine), mu opioid receptor agonism (tramadol, oxycodone and hydromorphone) and Nerve Growth Factor (NGF) inhibition (fulranumab). In brief, there are several drugs in advanced clinical development for treating PHN with some of them reporting promising results. AT2R antagonism, AAK1 inhibition, LANCL activation and NGF inhibition are considered first-in-class analgesics. Hopefully, these trials will result in a better clinical management of PHN.

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.

A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Pregabalin and Gabapentin in the Treatment of Postherpetic Neuralgia

OBJECTIVE

To systematically evaluate the clinical efficacy of pregabalin and gabapentin in the treatment of postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), including the difference in pain control and occurrence of adverse reactions.

METHODS

PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of pregabalin and gabapentin in patients with PHN. Data from studies meeting the inclusion criteria were extracted and the Cochrane Risk of Bias risk assessment tool was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. Revman 5.3 and Stata17 were used to perform the meta-analysis and to detect publication bias.

RESULTS

A total of 14 RCTs with 3545 patients were included in this study, including 926 in the pregabalin treatment group, 1256 in the gabapentin treatment group, and 1363 in the placebo control group. Pregabalin was better than gabapentin in alleviating pain and improving the global perception of change in pain and sleep (P < 0.05). Gabapentin was associated with a lower incidence of adverse events than pregabalin (P < 0.05). Funnel plot and Begg's and Egger's tests showed no significant publication bias.

CONCLUSION

Pregabalin appears to have a better overall therapeutic effect than gabapentin for patients with PHN, but gabapentin has a lower incidence of adverse reactions and a better safety profile. Clinicians should comprehensively consider patient factors and fully evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of each treatment option to select the most suitable drugs for patient use. Considering the limited quantity and quality of the existing literature, high-quality RCTs are needed to confirm the advantages of pregabalin over gabapentin in the treatment of PHN and guide clinical decision-making.