Duloxetine, pregabalin, and duloxetine plus gabapentin for diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain management in patients with inadequate pain response to gabapentin: an open-label, randomized, noninferiority comparison

Comparative analysis of the therapeutic effects of pregabalin, gabapentin, and duloxetine in diabetic peripheral neuropathy: A retrospective study

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to compare the effects of pregabalin, gabapentin, and duloxetine on diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) to guide tailored treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this retrospective study, 180 patients with type 2 diabetes and DPN were matched 1:1:1 across three groups based on HbA1c and age, resulting in 60 patients per group. Clinical data were collected, and the painDETECT score was used to evaluate treatment response over six weeks.

RESULTS

After six weeks, the gabapentin group had significantly higher pain scores than the pregabalin (P = 0.002) and duloxetine groups (P < 0.001). The pregabalin group's scores were higher than the duloxetine group's, but not significantly (P = 0.62). Side effects were more frequent with duloxetine (23.3 %) compared to gabapentin (1.7 %) and pregabalin (6.7 %) (P = 0.001). Among those with over 50 % improvement, mean HbA1c levels were 9.42 for gabapentin, 10.43 for pregabalin, and 7.72 for duloxetine. Duloxetine significantly lowered HbA1c compared to gabapentin (P = 0.001) and pregabalin (P = 0.001), with no significant difference between gabapentin and pregabalin (P = 0.45).

CONCLUSION

Duloxetine and pregabalin effectively treat DPN. Gabapentin and pregabalin are suitable for patients with HbA1c over 8.7, while duloxetine is better for those with well-controlled HbA1c. Treatment should consider side effects, adherence, costs, and response time.

LEVEL OF THE EVIDENCE

Level III retrospective cohort study.

Comparative efficacy and safety of gabapentin, pregabalin, oxcarbazepine, and duloxetine in diabetic peripheral neuropathy: A network meta-analysis

Purpose

To conduct a network meta-analysis comparing the safety and efficacy of gabapentin (GBP), pregabalin (PGB), oxcarbazepine (OXC), and duloxetine (DLX) in treating diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN).

Materials and Methods

The study's eligibility criteria includee randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a focus on DPN patients receiving GBP, PGB, DLX, or OXC versus placebo. Noncompliant trials with incomplete information and observational studies were excluded.

Results

Twelve (RCTs) of PGB, 2 of GBP, 3 of DLX, and 1 of OXC met the inclusion criteria. When drugs were compared for efficacy (direct comparison), GBP (Odd's ratio [OR] = 3.208, P < 0.001) was most effective followed by OXC (OR = 2.4, P = 0.0248), DLX (OR = 2.346, P < 0.001), and PGB (OR = 2.161, P < 0.001). When drugs were compared for withdrawal due to adverse drug reaction (ADR) (direct comparison), GBP (OR = 1.3818, P = 0.766) was safest followed by PGB (OR = 2.16, P < 0.001), DLX (OR = 2.469, P < 0.001), and OXC (OR = 4.4967, P = 0.001). Indirect comparison was done for efficacy, DLX was statistically significant than PGB and OXC (DLX vs. PGB, P = 0.03; DLX vs. OXC, P = 0.02). When indirect comparison was done for patient withdrawal due to ADR, OXC was worst (GBP vs. OXC, P = 0.0001; PGB vs. OXC, P = 0.007; DLX vs. OXC, P = 0.015). When drugs were compared for individual ADRs (direct comparison), dizziness was most commonly seen with OXC (OR = 9.6535, P = 1.8425), headache with OXC (OR = 3.8686, P = 0.006), somnolence with PGB (OR = 5.189, P < 0.001), and nausea with DLX (OR = 3.264, P < 0.001). GBP was most effective and safest drug followed by OXC > DLX > PGB for efficacy and PGB > DLX > OXC for safety.

Conclusion

In evaluating medications for DPN against placebo, GBP and OXC demonstrated the highest effectiveness while maintaining a favorable safety profile.

Effectiveness of Duloxetine versus Other Therapeutic Modalities in Patients with Diabetic Neuropathic Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objectives: Diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) is a chronic complication of diabetes mellitus (DM) with symptoms like intense pain and impaired quality of life. This condition has no treatment; instead, the pain is managed with various antidepressants, including duloxetine. The aim of this study is to analyze the evidence on the efficacy of duloxetine in the management of DPN. Methods: A systematic search in different databases was conducted using the keywords "diabetic neuropathy", "duloxetine therapy", "neuropathic pain", and "Diabetes Mellitus". Finally, eight studies were included in this meta-analysis. Results: All articles comparing duloxetine at different doses vs. a placebo reported significant differences in favor of duloxetine on pain scales like 24 h Average Pain Severity (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -1.06, confidence interval [CI] = -1.09 to -1.03, and p < 0.00001) and BPI Severity (SMD = -0.70, CI = -0.72 to -0.68, and p < 0.00001), among others. A total of 75% of the meta-analyses of studies comparing duloxetine at different doses showed a tendency in favor of the 120 mg/d dose. There were significant differences in favor of duloxetine when compared to routine care on the Euro Quality of Life (SMD = -0.04, CI = -0.04 to -0.03, and p < 0.00001) and SF-36 Survey (SMD = -5.86, CI = -6.28 to -5.44, and p < 0.00001) scales. There were no significant differences on the visual analog scale (VAS) when comparing duloxetine and gabapentin. Conclusions: Duloxetine appears to be effective in the management of DPN in different pain, symptom improvement, and quality of life scales.

Monotherapy Versus Combination Therapy in the Treatment of Painful Diabetic Neuropathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Painful peripheral neuropathy is a common and challenging complication of diabetes mellitus. Combination therapy is used widely by clinicians, although strong evidence for efficacy and safety is lacking. The goal of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of combination versus monotherapy of first-line medications for peripheral diabetic neuropathy.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central, and clinicaltrials.gov databases were searched on December 5, 2022, for randomized clinical trials comparing combined therapy with gabapentinoids and either tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) or serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) versus monotherapy with any of these drugs. Pooled mean differences (MD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) were computed for pain outcomes, measured on an 11-point numeric rating scale averaging pain scores in the last 7 days. Risk ratios (RRs) were computed for binary endpoints. Risk assessment was performed using the Risk of Bias 2 tool.

RESULTS

A total of five randomized studies and 916 patients were included. Follow-up ranged from 6 to 12 weeks. Mean pain reduction was greater for combination therapy than monotherapy (MD - 0.39; 95% CI - 0.67 to - 0.12; p = 0.005). Similarly, there was an improvement in ≥ 30% reduction in average pain (RR 1.16; 95% CI 1.07-1.26; p < 0.01) with combination therapy. In contrast, there was no significant difference between groups in ≥ 50% reduction in average pain (RR 1.21; 95% CI 0.99-1.49; p = 0.06). When comparing combination therapy versus gabapentinoid monotherapy, there was also a significant reduction in average pain (MD - 0.61; 95% CI - 0.85 to - 0.37; p < 0.01) with combination therapy.

CONCLUSION

In patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy, the combination of gabapentinoids with TCAs or SNRIs is associated with a greater reduction in pain as compared with monotherapy, although this difference may not translate into a clinically important difference.

Excessive Daytime Sleepiness and Insomnia Symptoms in Adolescents With Major Depressive Disorder: Prevalence, Clinical Correlates, and the Relationship With Psychiatric Medications Use

OBJECTIVE

Excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) and insomnia symptoms are common in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD), which might lead to a poor prognosis and an increased risk of depression relapse. The current study aimed to investigate the prevalence, and sociodemographic and clinical correlates of EDS and insomnia symptoms among adolescents with MDD.

METHODS

The sample of this cross-sectional study included 297 adolescents (mean age=15.26 years; range=12-18 years; 218 females) with MDD recruited from three general and four psychiatric hospitals in five cities (Hefei, Bengbu, Fuyang, Suzhou, and Ma'anshan) in Anhui Province, China between January and August, 2021. EDS and insomnia symptoms, and clinical severity of depressive symptoms were assessed using Epworth sleepiness scale, Insomnia Severity Index, and Clinical Global Impression-Severity.

RESULTS

The prevalence of EDS and insomnia symptoms in adolescents with MDD was 39.7% and 38.0%, respectively. Binary logistic regression analyses showed that EDS symptoms were significantly associated with higher body mass index (odds ratio [OR]=1.097, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.027-1.172), more severe depressive symptoms (OR=1.313, 95% CI=1.028-1.679), and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors use (OR=2.078, 95% CI=1.199-3.601). And insomnia symptoms were positively associated with female sex (OR=1.955, 95% CI=1.052-3.633), suicide attempts (OR=1.765, 95% CI=1.037-3.005), more severe depressive symptoms (OR=2.031, 95% CI=1.523-2.709), and negatively associated with antipsychotics use (OR=0.433, 95% CI=0.196-0.952).

CONCLUSION

EDS and insomnia symptoms are common among adolescents with MDD. Considering their negative effects on the clinical prognosis, regular screening and clinical managements should be developed for this patient population.

Pregabalin-Tolperisone Combination to Treat Neuropathic Pain: Improved Analgesia and Reduced Side Effects in Rats

The current treatment of neuropathic pain (NP) is unsatisfactory; therefore, effective novel agents or combination-based analgesic therapies are needed. Herein, oral tolperisone, pregabalin, and duloxetine were tested for their antinociceptive effect against rat partial sciatic nerve ligation (pSNL)-induced tactile allodynia described by a decrease in the paw withdrawal threshold (PWT) measured by a dynamic plantar aesthesiometer. On day 7 after the operation, PWTs were assessed at 60, 120, and 180 min post-treatment. Chronic treatment was continued for 2 weeks, and again, PWTs were measured on day 14 and 21. None of the test compounds produced an acute antiallodynic effect. In contrast, after chronic treatment, tolperisone and pregabalin alleviated allodynia. In other experiments, on day 14, the acute antiallodynic effect of the tolperisone/pregabalin or duloxetine combination was measured. As a novel finding, a single dose of the tolperisone/pregabalin combination could remarkably alleviate allodynia acutely. It also restored the neuropathy-induced elevated CSF glutamate content. Furthermore, the combination is devoid of adverse effects related to motor and gastrointestinal transit functions. Tolperisone and pregabalin target voltage-gated sodium and calcium channels, respectively. The dual blockade effect of the combination might explain its advantageous acute analgesic effect in the present work.

Efficacy and safety of duloxetine in painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (PDPN) is a key concern in clinical practice. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we compared duloxetine and placebo treatments in terms of their efficacy and safety in patients with PDPN.

METHODS

Following the PRISMA guidelines, we searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase databases for relevant English articles published before January 11, 2021. Treatment efficacy and safety were assessed in terms of pain improvement, patient-reported health-related performance, and patients' quality of life.

RESULTS

We reviewed a total of 7 randomized controlled trials. Regarding pain improvement, duloxetine was more efficacious than placebo (mean difference [MD] - 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI] - 1.09 to - 0.69; P < .00001). Furthermore, duloxetine significantly improved the patients' quality of life, which was assessed using the Clinical Global Impression severity subscale (MD - 0.48; 95% CI - 0.61 to - 0.36; P < .00001), Patient Global Impression of Improvement scale (MD - 0.50; 95% CI - 0.64 to - 0.37; P < .00001), and European Quality of Life Instrument 5D version (MD 0.04; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.07; P = .0002). Severe adverse events were rare, whereas nausea, somnolence, dizziness, fatigue, constipation, and decreased appetite were common; approximately, 12.6% of all patients dropped out because of the common symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Duloxetine is more efficacious than placebo treatments in patients with PDPN. The rarity of severe adverse events indicates that duloxetine is safe. When a 60-mg dose is insufficient, 120 mg of duloxetine may improve PDPN symptoms. Our findings may help devise optimal treatment strategies for PDPN.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42021225451.

An overview of painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy: Diagnosis and treatment advancements

Diabetes mellitus remains a public health problem, affecting 422 million people worldwide. Currently, there is no consensus around treating painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy in a step-wise manner. Among the non-pharmacological interventions, neuromodulation has become a promising alternative. Over the past decade, significant clinical trials have paved the way for prompt inclusion of high-frequency spinal cord stimulation within the painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy treatment algorithm. This article aims to provide an updated evidence-based approach for the management of painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy.

Current Strategies for the Management of Painful Diabetic Neuropathy

The development of painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) is a common complication of chronic diabetes that can be associated with significant disability and healthcare costs. Prompt symptom identification and aggressive glycemic control is essential in controlling the development of neuropathic complications; however, adequate pain relief remains challenging and there are considerable unmet needs in this patient population. Although guidelines have been established regarding the pharmacological management of PDN, pain control is inadequate or refractory in a high proportion of patients. Pharmacotherapy with anticonvulsants (pregabalin, gabapentin) and antidepressants (duloxetine) are common first-line agents. The use of oral opioids is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality and can also lead to opioid-induced hyperalgesia. Their use is therefore discouraged. There is an emerging role for neuromodulation treatment modalities including intrathecal drug delivery, spinal cord stimulation, and dorsal root ganglion stimulation. Furthermore, consideration of holistic alternative therapies such as yoga and acupuncture may augment a multidisciplinary treatment approach. This aim of this review is to focus on the current management strategies for the treatment of PDN, with a discussion of treatment rationale and practical considerations for their implementation.

Pharmacotherapy of Painful Diabetic Neuropathy: A Clinical Update

The rising prevalence of diabetes mellitus (DM) leads on to an increase in chronic diabetic complications. Diabetic peripheral neuropathies (DPNs) are common chronic complications of diabetes. Distal symmetric polyneuropathy is the most prevalent form. Most patients with DPN will remain pain-free; however, painful DPN (PDPN) occurs in 6-34% of all DM patients and is associated with reduced health-related-quality-of-life and substantial economic burden. Symptomatic treatment of PDPN and diabetic autonomic neuropathy is the key treatment goals. Using certain patient related characteristics, subjects with PDPN can be stratified and assigned targeted therapies to produce better pain outcomes. The aim of this review is to discuss the various pathogenetic mechanisms of DPN with special reference to the mechanisms leading to PDPN and the various pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies available for its management. Recommended pharmacological therapies include anticonvulsants, antidepressants, opioid analgesics, and topical medications.

Advances About Immunoinflammatory Pathogenesis and Treatment in Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy

Most diabetic patients develop diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN). DPN is related to the increase of inflammatory cells in peripheral nerves, abnormal cytokine expression, oxidative stress, ischemia ,and pro-inflammatory changes in bone marrow. We summarized the progress of immune-inflammatory mechanism and treatment of DPN in recent years. Immune inflammatory mechanisms include TNF-α, HSPs, PARP, other inflammatory factors, and the effect of immune cells on DPN. Treatment includes tricyclic antidepressants and other drug therapy, immune and molecular therapy, and non-drug therapy such as exercise therapy, electrotherapy, acupuncture, and moxibustion. The pathogenesis of DPN is complex. In addition to strictly controlling blood glucose, its treatment should also start from other ways, explore more effective and specific treatment schemes for various causes of DPN, and find new targets for treatment will be the direction of developing DPN therapeutic drugs in the future.

Drug Repositioning: Antimalarial Activities of GABA Analogs in Mice Infected with Plasmodium berghei

BACKGROUND

Drug repositioning is becoming popular due to the development of resistance to almost all the recommended antimalarials. Pregabalin and gabapentin are chemical analogs of gamma- aminobutyric acid (GABA) approved for the treatment of epilepsy and neuropathic pain.

OBJECTIVE

This study investigates acute toxicities and antimalarial activities of pregabalin and gabapentin in the murine malarial model.

METHODS

Acute toxicities were assessed using the method of Lorke, while curative activities were assessed by the administration of serial doses of pregabalin and gabapentin to Plasmodium berghei infected mice. Pregabalin was further investigated for its prophylactic activity, and curative potential when combined with either artesunate or amodiaquine. All drugs were freshly prepared and administered orally. Thin films were collected, stained, and observed under the microscope for the estimation of parasitemia and calculation of percentage chemoinhibition or chemoprevention. In pregabalin -artesunate or -amodiaquine combination aspect of this study, survival day post-infection (SDPI) was recorded, while parasitemia was re-estimated for animals that survived till day 28.

RESULTS

The oral LD50 of gabapentin, as well as pregabalin, was >5,000 mg/kg. Gabapentin at 100 and 200 mg/Kg demonstrated 35.64% and -12.78% chemoinhibition, respectively, while pregabalin demonstrated 75.60% and 100.00% chemoinhibition at doses of 12.5 and 25 mg/Kg, respectively. Moreover, pregabalin at individual doses of 25, 50 mg/Kg, and in combination with either artesunate or amodiaquine demonstrated 100.00% chemoinhibition. In its prophylactic study, pregabalin was found to be 100% chemopreventive at individual doses of 12.5 and 25 mg/Kg.

CONCLUSION

Both GABA analogs have antimalarial properties, but pregabalin proved to be more efficacious.

Considerations for single- versus multiple-drug pharmacotherapy in the management of painful diabetic neuropathy

INTRODUCTION

The efficacy of monotherapy to reduce pain from diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) is frequently not satisfactory and guidelines do not provide unanimous treatment options. In this context, multiple drug pharmacotherapy may provide benefit.

AREAS COVERED

The aim of the present review is to describe the clinical trials addressing the pharmacotherapy of painful DPN. Studies discussing efficacy and tolerability of pharmacological agents that were assessed in monotherapy and in combination treatment are reported and discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

Several clinical trials have reported benefit of multiple-drug pharmacotherapy. Nevertheless, untoward effects of combination treatment are of concern. Importantly, some trials were restricted to comparison with placebo and other compared only with active comparator(s). Only limited clinical trials assessed selected cohorts of individuals experiencing different stages of painful DPN. Despite current limitations, some evidence of studies implicating a comparison to all active comparators points to safety and effectiveness of the combination of oxycodone with pregabalin and that of pregabalin with the 5% lidocaine plaster but future, clear-cut studies are required to drive evidence-based decisions in the clinical setting.

Induction of anxiolytic, antidepressant and analgesic effects by Shiff base of (E)-3-(1H-imidazol-4-yl)-2-((2-oxoindolin-3-ylidene)amino)propanoic acid derivatives in diabetic rats

Diabetes mellitus is a metabolic disorder with several psychological problems such as anxiety, depression, and pain sense. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of Schiff base on the modulation of anxiety, depression, and pain behaviors in diabetic rats. Anxiety, depression, and pain behaviors were evaluated by elevated plus maze (EPM), forced swim test (FST), and hot-plate test, respectively. The results indicated that induction of diabetes decreased time spent in open arms (OAT) in the EPM whereas injection of insulin (1 ml/kg), glibenclamide (5 mg/kg), and Schiff base II (100 mg/kg) increased OAT in the EPM. So, induction of diabetes in rats caused an anxiogenic effect that this effect reversed by drug treatment. Interestingly, co-treatment of insulin and glibenclamide along with an ineffective dose of Schiff base II potentiated anxiolytic behavior in diabetic rats. Furthermore, induction of diabetes increased immobility time in the FST but administration of insulin (1 ml/kg), glibenclamide (5 mg/kg), and Schiff base II (25, 50, and 100 mg/kg) decreased immobility time in the FST which indicated depressant effect in diabetic rats without drug-treatment and antidepressant effect in diabetic rats with drug-treatment. Additionally, induction of diabetes decreased latency in the hot-plate test while injection of insulin (1 ml/kg), glibenclamide (5 mg/kg), Schiff base I (50 mg/kg), and Schiff base II (25, 50, and 100 mg/kg) enhanced latency in the hot-plate test which revealed hyperalgesic effect in diabetic rats without drug-treatment and analgesic effect in diabetic rats with drug-treatment. Consequently, induction of diabetes-induced anxiogenic, depressant, and hyperalgesia effects that administration of insulin, glibenclamide, Schiff bases I, and II reversed these effects.

Oral pharmacotherapeutics for the management of peripheral neuropathic pain conditions - a review of clinical trials

INTRODUCTION

Epidemiological studies have shown that 6.9-10% of people suffer from neuropathic pain, a complex painful condition which is often undertreated. Data regarding the effectiveness of treatment options for patients with neuropathic pain is inconsistent, and there is no single treatment option that shows cost-effectiveness across studies.

AREAS COVERED

In this narrative review, the authors present the results of different prospective, randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses assessing the effects of different oral medications in the management of various peripheral neuropathic pain conditions. The authors discuss the effectiveness of commonly used oral medications such as voltage-gated calcium channels antagonists, voltage-gated sodium channel antagonists, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, NMDA antagonists, and medications with other mechanisms of action.

EXPERT OPINION

Most of the presented medications were more effective than placebo; however, when compared to each other, none of them were significantly superior. The heterogeneity of the studies looking into different oral neuropathic conditions has been the major issue that prevents us from making stronger recommendations. There are multiple reasons including high placebo responsiveness, improperly treated underlying comorbidities (particularly anxiety and depression), and inter-patient variability. Different sensory phenotypes should also be taken into consideration when designing future clinical trials for neuropathic pain.

Duloxetine and pregabalin in neuropathic pain of lung cancer patients

INTRODUCTION

Neuropathic pain occurs in 1% of the population and is difficult to manage. This chronic pain causes psychological distress and impacts patient's quality of life, especially in cancer patients. The aim of this study was to show and compare the efficacy of pregabalin and duloxetine, which are reported in the group of first-line treatment at European Federation of Neurological Societies (EFNS) guidelines on the pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain (2010 revision) in lung cancer patients by using visual analogue scale (VAS) and Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Sign (LANSS).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospective, randomized, open label, 3 month of study was conducted. A total of 44 patients that were diagnosed with neuropathic pain (14 women and 30 men) were included in the study. Patient's LANSS and VAS values were recorded before treatment. Then, 22 patients undergo pregabalin and 22 patients undergo duloxetine therapy. But due to side effects (dizziness, constipation), two patients had stopped to use pregabalin. Their LANSS and VAS values were recorded after 1 and 3 months of therapy.

RESULTS

When we compare LANSS and VAS scores before treatment, after 1 and 3 months of treatment with pregabalin and duloxetine, a significant decrease was observed in both groups at the 1 and 3 months (p < .01). Duloxetine is superior to pregabalin in reducing the LANSS scores when we compare two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Both duloxetine and pregabalin are effective in the treatment of neuropathic pain of lung cancer patients. And as far as we know, this is the first study comparing the efficacy of duloxetine and pregabalin in the neuropathic pain of lung cancer patients.

Treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathy: a review

OBJECTIVES

This review surveys current pharmacotherapies available for the treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN), emphasising their mechanisms of action.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review focusing on the 'pharmacotherapy and treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathy' was conducted. The Database of International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, EMBASE, PubMed, OVID, Scopus, Google and Google Scholar were searched, and reference lists of relevant articles were also included.

KEY FINDINGS

Diabetic peripheral neuropathy is often inadequately treated, and the role of improving glycaemic control specifically in type-2 diabetes remains unclear. It is crucial to explore the mechanisms of action and effectiveness of available therapies. Major international clinical guidelines for the management of DPN recommend several symptomatic treatments. First-line therapies include tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors, and anticonvulsants that act on calcium channels. Other therapies include opioids and topical agents such as capsaicin and lidocaine. The objectives of this paper are to review current guidelines for the pharmacological management of DPN and to discuss research relevant to the further development of pharmacological recommendations for the treatment of diabetic neuropathy.

SUMMARY

Diabetic neuropathy is a highly prevalent, disabling condition, the management of which is associated with significant costs. Evidence supports the use of specific anticonvulsants and antidepressants for pain management in patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathy. All current guidelines advise a personalised approach with a low-dose start that is tailored to the maximum response having the least side effects or adverse events.

High-frequency spinal cord stimulation at 10 kHz for the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy: design of a multicenter, randomized controlled trial (SENZA-PDN)

BACKGROUND

Painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN), a debilitating and progressive chronic pain condition that significantly impacts quality of life, is one of the common complications seen with long-standing diabetes mellitus. Neither pharmacological treatments nor low-frequency spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has provided significant and long-term pain relief for patients with PDN. This study aims to document the value of 10-kHz SCS in addition to conventional medical management (CMM) compared with CMM alone in patients with refractory PDN.

METHODS

In a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial (SENZA-PDN), 216 subjects with PDN will be assigned 1:1 to receive 10-kHz SCS combined with CMM or CMM alone after appropriate institutional review board approvals and followed for 24 months. Key inclusion criteria include (1) symptoms of PDN for at least 12 months, (2) average pain intensity of at least 5 cm-on a 0- to 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS)-in the lower limbs, and (3) an appropriate candidate for SCS. Key exclusion criteria include (1) large or gangrenous ulcers or (2) average pain intensity of at least 3 cm on VAS in the upper limbs or both. Along with pain VAS, neurological assessments, health-related quality of life, sleep quality, and patient satisfaction will be captured. The primary endpoint comparing responder rates (≥50% pain relief) and safety rates between the treatment groups will be assessed at 3 months. Several secondary endpoints will also be reported on.

DISCUSSION

Enrollment commenced in 2017 and was completed in 2019. This study will help to determine whether 10-kHz SCS improves clinical outcomes and health-related quality of life and is a cost-effective treatment for PDN that is refractory to CMM.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClincalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03228420 (registered 24 July 2017).

Efficacy and safety of duloxetine and Pregabalin in Iranian patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain: a double-blind, randomized clinical trial

Purpose

Diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP) is one of the most sufferings, disabling, and dominant complications of diabetes. Duloxetine (DLX) and Pregabalin (PGB) are among first-line therapy and the most prescribed drugs for DPNP relief. The effectiveness-risk profile of drugs may differ from region to region due to variations in genetic and health situation of populations. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DLX and PGB in a sample of Iranian population with DPNP.

Methods

A double-blind, randomized clinical trial was conducted on 180 type-2 diabetic patients with DPNP≥40 mm according to Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), with other eligibility criteria throughout twelve weeks. We divided the patients randomly into two equal groups: DLX and PGB. Each patient received ten days placebo as a washout period, then blind capsules of DLX (group 1) or PGB (group 2). We assessed the efficacy and safety of drugs by VAS and recorded the Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs) during the study.

Results

In the DLX group, sixty-six and the PGB group, seventy-eight patients completed the study. The intensity of patients’ pain was improved by both drugs significantly (p˂0.001), but there was no significant difference between the two groups. Average daily doses of DLX and PGB were 42.5 and 235.5 mg, respectively. In the DLX group, 74% of patients and the PGB group, 37% reported ADRs. The discontinuation rates due to ADRs were 19% and 7% correspondingly.

Conclusion

We found that in Iranian patients, the mean effective doses of these drugs are different in comparison with several other studies. Surprisingly intolerance and discontinuation of DLX in our patients were attributed to mild and severe Serotonin Syndrome, which had not much occurred in other studies. Accordingly, despite the same efficacy, PGB was better tolerated than DLX in our patients. Thus we would recommend PGB for DPNP treatment in Iranian patients.

A Systematic Review of Efficacy, Safety, and Tolerability of Duloxetine

Duloxetine is a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor approved for the treatment of patients affected by major depressive disorder (MDD), generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), neuropathic pain (NP), fibromyalgia (FMS), and stress incontinence urinary (SUI). These conditions share parallel pathophysiological pathways, and duloxetine treatment might be an effective and safe alternative. Thus, a systematic review was conducted following the 2009 Preferred Reporting Items (PRISMA) recommendations and Joanna Briggs Institute Critical (JBI) Appraisals guidelines. Eighty-five studies focused on efficacy, safety, and tolerability of duloxetine were included in our systematic review. Studies were subdivided by clinical condition and evaluated individually. Thus, 32 studies of MDD, 11 studies of GAD, 19 studies of NP, 9 studies of FMS, and 14 studies of SUI demonstrated that the measured outcomes indicate the suitability of duloxetine in the treatment of these clinical conditions. This systematic review confirms that the dual mechanism of duloxetine benefits the treatment of comorbid clinical conditions, and supports the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of duloxetine in short- and long-term treatments.

Effect of serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors for patients with chemotherapy-induced painful peripheral neuropathy: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To compare the efficacy of serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) treatment for chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) METHODS:: Two authors independently searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochran Library, and Web of Science to identify and review articles published from January 1998 until December 2018 according to selection criteria. Outcomes were expressed as mean difference, the pooled odds ratio, or relative risk in a meta-analysis model.

RESULTS

A total of 10 studies were included in this meta-analysis: 6 randomized-controlled studies and 4 observational studies. Meta-analysis showed that CIPN was improved after treatment with SNRI (standardized mean difference = 2.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-3.49; I = 93% in 3 randomized controlled studies). Somnolence and insomnia occurred in <15% of patients. Incidence of somnolence was lower than with pregabalin treatment, and insomnia was comparable to that in expectant management or pregabalin treatment. Incidence of nausea and vomiting was higher than in expectant management, but no significant difference was found when compared to expectant management.

CONCLUSION

From the several available studies suitable for indirect comparison, SNRI shows excellent efficacy and tolerability to CIPN. SNRI could provide an important treatment option for CIPN.

Pregabalin and Amitriptyline as Monotherapy or as Low-Dose Combination in Patients of Neuropathic Pain: A Randomized, Controlled Trial to Evaluate Efficacy and Safety in an Eastern India Teaching Hospital

Objectives:

The main objective is to compare efficacy and safety of pregabalin and amitriptyline monotherapy with their low-dose combination in patients of neuropathic pain (NeuP).

Methodology:

In this parallel-group, open-label interventional study at the Neurology Outpatient Department of Bankura Sammilani Medical College, a total of 147 patients were randomly allocated into three groups and were prescribed the following drugs – Group P (n = 42) pregabalin 150 mg once daily, Group A (n = 34), amitriptyline 25 mg once daily, and Group Z (n = 37) = pregabalin (75 mg) + amitriptyline (10 mg) as combination once daily. They were followed up after 4, 8, and 12 weeks. Efficacy was assessed by NeuP symptom inventory score (NPSI) and safety was assessed by treatment-emergent adverse events.

Results:

Final assessment was done on 92 patients (P = 31, A = 31, Z = 30). Males were predominant (71.7%). NPSI score significantly decreased in every group from baseline (P < 0.0001). There was no difference of NPSI score between groups at any level of follow-up. Percentage of adverse drug reactions were maximum (44.9%) in amitriptyline monotherapy group and lowest in combined group. However, amitriptyline monotherapy was the cheapest treatment option among these three.

Conclusion:

Combining pregabalin and amitriptyline at low doses proved to be equally effective but more tolerable compared to individual higher dosage monotherapy. However, if tolerability is good, amitriptyline monotherapy can be an attractive choice in economically challenged group of patients.

Duloxetine protects against experimental diabetic retinopathy in mice through retinal GFAP downregulation and modulation of neurotrophic factors

Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is recognized as one of the leading causes of blindness worldwide. Searching and validation for a novel therapeutic strategy to prevent its progress are promising. This work aimed to assess the retinal protective effects of duloxetine (DLX) in Alloxan-induced diabetic mice model. Animals were equally and randomly divided to four groups (eight mice per group); group 1: is the control group, 2: diabetic group, 3&4: diabetic and after 9 weeks received DLX for 4 weeks (15 mg/kg and 30 mg/kg), respectively. Quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) analysis revealed nerve growth factor (NGF), inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS) and transforming growth factor beta (TGF-β) genes upregulation in the diabetic group compared to controls. Also, increased retinal malondialdehyde (MDA) and the decline of reduced glutathione (GSH) levels were observed. The morphometric analysis of diabetic retina revealed a significant reduction in total retinal thickness compared to control. Diabetic retinal immunostaining and Western blot analyses displayed glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) and vascular endothelial cell growth factor (VEGF) proteins expression upregulation as well as glucose transporter-1 (GLUT-1) downregulation comparing to controls. However, DLX-treated groups showed downregulated NGF, iNOS, and TGF-β that was more obviously seen in the DLX-30 mg/kg group than DLX-15 mg/kg group. Furthermore, these groups showed amelioration of the oxidative markers; MDA and GSH, retaining the total retinal thickness nearly to control, GFAP and VEGF downregulation, and GLUT-1 upregulation compared to diabetic group. Taken together, it could be summarized that duloxetine can attenuate DR via the anti-inflammatory and the anti-oxidative properties as well as modulating the angiogenic and the neurotrophic factors expressions. This could hopefully pave the road to be included in the novel list of the therapeutic regimen for DR after validation in the clinic.

A comparative double-blind randomized study on the effectiveness of Duloxetine and Gabapentin on painful diabetic peripheral polyneuropathy

Background: The most common cause of polyneuropathy is diabetes mellitus. Neuropathic pain is seen in 26% of diabetic population. Therapeutic techniques for this disease can become challenging. Method: This study was a prospective comparative double-blind randomized study which was conducted during an eight-week period. Totally, 104 painful diabetic peripheral polyneuropathy (PDPP) patients who had a minimum Visual Analog Scale (VAS) of 40 millimeters, received no pain-controlling medication, and had no other severe disease at its final stage were randomly assigned to two groups (n=52) through the four block method. One group received Duloxetine and the other received Gabapentin. The effectiveness was measured through primary effectiveness (VAS scale) and secondary effectiveness (Sleep Interference Score, and Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGIC)). Medication compliance was assessed by enumerating the number of patients who refused treatment because of side effects. The Fisher's exact T-test and ANOVA were used for data analysis. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Jundishapur, University of Medical sciences Ahvaz, Iran, under reference number: IR.AJUMS.REC.1395.78. In addition, this study was registered and approved in the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (IRCT ID: IRCT20161023030455N2) (http://irct.ir/). Results: VAS, Sleep Interference Score, and CGIC were significantly improved (P<0.05) through time in both groups, [For GBP: VAS^Baseline=64±20.03, VAS^week1=55.32±18.76, VAS^week4=44.68±15.82, VAS^week8=39.43±14.32; For DLX: VAS^Base-line=62±21.18, VAS^week1=58.76±20.37, VAS^week4=45.84±16.21, VAS^week8=36.78±15.62] while a significant difference between the two groups was not observed (P<0.05). However, such significant improvements were not observed in the Duloxetine group at the end of the first week (P=674). Improvement in Sleep Interference Score and CGIC were similar to the results for the VAS scale. Side effects in the Duloxetine group (n=2) compared to the Gabapentin group (n=9) were significantly less (P<0.001). As a result, medication acceptance in the Duloxetine group (n=47) was significantly better than the Gabapentin (n=41) group (P<0.001). Conclusion: Both Duloxetine and Gabapentin are effective for the treatment of PDPP. On the one hand, Gabapentin shows the effect earlier while has more side effects. Conversely, Duloxetine has better medication compliance. Trial registration: The method of this study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran, under reference number: IR.AJUMS.REC.1395.78. In addition, this study was registered and approved in the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (IRCT ID: IRCT20161023030455N2) (http://irct.ir/).

An update on the diagnosis and treatment of diabetic somatic and autonomic neuropathy

Diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) is the most common chronic complication of diabetes. It poses a significant challenge for clinicians as it is often diagnosed late when patients present with advanced consequences such as foot ulceration. Autonomic neuropathy (AN) is also a frequent and under-diagnosed complication unless it is overtly symptomatic. Both somatic and autonomic neuropathy are associated with increased mortality. Multiple clinical trials have failed because of limited efficacy in advanced disease, inadequate trial duration, lack of effective surrogate end-points and a lack of deterioration in the placebo arm in clinical trials of DPN. Multifactorial risk factor reduction, targeting glycaemia, blood pressure and lipids can reduce the progression of DPN and AN. Treatment of painful DPN reduces painful symptoms by about 50% at best, but there is limited efficacy with any single agent. This reflects the complex aetiology of painful DPN and argues for improved clinical phenotyping with the use of targeted therapy, taking into account co-morbid conditions such as anxiety, depression and sleep disturbance.

Duloxetine in patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain in Japan: a randomized, doubleblind, noninferiority comparative study with pregabalin

Purpose

Duloxetine and pregabalin are recommended as first-line treatments for diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP). However, studies have not reported a direct comparison between duloxetine and pregabalin. We conducted a postmarketing, randomized, double-blind study to assess the noninferiority of duloxetine compared with pregabalin after 12 weeks of treatment in adult patients with DPNP in Japan (NCT02417935).

Patients and methods

Patients (N = 303) with distal symmetrical DPNP were randomized to and were administered duloxetine (40–60 mg/day) or pregabalin (300–600 mg/day). The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in weekly mean of the 24-hour average pain score (numeric rating scale [NRS]). Noninferiority of duloxetine compared with pregabalin was assessed with the primary endpoint at week 12. Secondary measures, including night pain and worst pain, Brief Pain Inventory-Severity and Interference rating short form (BPI-SF), Clinical Global Impression of Improvement (CGI-I), Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I), and Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI), health outcome measures (EuroQol 5-Dimension index and VAS), and safety were also assessed.

Results

For the 24-hour NRS average pain score, the difference between the duloxetine and pregabalin groups was 0.072 (95% CI: – 0.295, 0.439), and the upper bound of the 95% CI (0.439) did not exceed the predefined noninferiority margin (0.51), at the end of the study period. For secondary outcome measures (night pain, worst pain, BPI-SF, CGI-I, PGI-I, NPSI) and health outcome measures, both the duloxetine and pregabalin treatment groups showed an improvement from baseline with no significant between-group difference. Duloxetine and pregabalin were well tolerated and the safety profiles were consistent with previously reported results.

Conclusion

This study demonstrated the noninferior efficacy of duloxetine compared with pregabalin in the treatment of adult patients with DPNP. The safety analyses showed an acceptable tolerability based on safety profiles of duloxetine and pregabalin.

Response to duloxetine and gabapentin combination of a patient who has chronical orchialgia with bilateral tubular ectasia of rete testis and multiple epididymal cysts

Tubular ectasia of rete testis (TERT) is a rarely seen benign condition of testis which can cause chronic orchalgia. TERT appears as an anechoic lesion in ultrasonography. However magnetic resonance imaging is a more sophisticated diagnostic tool. TERT is commonly associated with epididymal cysts. Generally a conservative treatment approach is preferred. In some cases surgery is required. In our case, 54-year-old male patient had bilateral TERT associated with bilateral multiple epididymal cysts. He had chronic testicular pain which did not respond to first- line conservative treatments. After use of duloxetine (60 mg PO) plus gabapentine (400 mg PO) combination as a second-line conservative treatment, the patient dramatically responded to this treatment. The patients who have chronic testicular pain caused by bilateral TERT and multiple epididymal cysts may be treated with combination of duloxetine (60 mg PO) plus gabapentine (400 mg PO) combination.

Phloretin either alone or in combination with duloxetine alleviates the STZ-induced diabetic neuropathy in rats

Diabetic neuropathy (DN) is one of most disabling disorder complicating diabetes mellites (DM), which affects more than 50% of the all diabetic patients during the disease course. Duloxetine (DX) is one of the first-line medication that approved by FDA for management of DN, nevertheless, it is too costly and has many adverse effects. Recently, phloretin (PH) exhibited powerful euglycemic, antihyperlipidemic, antioxidant, and anti-inflammatory activities. Therefore, we investigated the in vivo possible antineuropathic activity of phloretin, besides, its modulating effects on duloxetine potency, in a rat model of DN. Twelve-week-old male Wistar rats received a single intraperitoneal injection of 55 mg/kg STZ to induce DM. Either DX (30 or 15 mg/kg dissolved in distilled water), PH (50 0r 25 mg/kg dissolved in 0.5% DMSO) or a combination of 15 mg/kg DX and 25 mg/kg PH, used daily orally for 4 weeks to treat DN, starting from the end of the 4th week of DM development, when DN confirmed. Our finding showed that both DX and PH dose-dependently improved behavioral parameters (with the superiority of DX), sciatic nerve tissue antioxidant state, and suppressed tissue inflammatory cytokine, besides, they abrogated the tissue histopathological changes (with the superiority of PH). Moreover, DX augmented the DM metabolic disturbance and hepatic dysfunction, however, PH effectively amended these disorders. Furthermore, the low-dose combination of both, had the merits of both medications, with the alleviation of their disadvantages. Therefore, phloretin could be a promising agent in the management of DN either alone or in combination with duloxetine.

Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy: Epidemiology, Diagnosis, and Pharmacotherapy

PURPOSE

Diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) is the commonest cause of neuropathy worldwide, and its prevalence increases with the duration of diabetes. It affects approximately half of patients with diabetes. DPN is symmetric and predominantly sensory, starting distally and gradually spreading proximally in a glove-and-stocking distribution. It causes substantial morbidity and is associated with increased mortality. The unrelenting nature of pain in this condition can negatively affect a patient's sleep, mood, and functionality and result in a poor quality of life. The purpose of this review was to critically review the current literature on the diagnosis and treatment of DPN, with a focus on the treatment of neuropathic pain in DPN.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review was undertaken, incorporating article searches in electronic databases (EMBASE, PubMed, OVID) and reference lists of relevant articles with the authors' expertise in DPN. This review considers seminal and novel research in epidemiology; diagnosis, especially in relation to novel surrogate end points; and the treatment of neuropathic pain in DPN. We also consider potential new pharmacotherapies for painful DPN.

FINDINGS

DPN is often misdiagnosed and inadequately treated. Other than improving glycemic control, there is no licensed pathogenetic treatment for diabetic neuropathy. Management of painful DPN remains challenging due to difficulties in personalizing therapy and ascertaining the best dosing strategy, choice of initial pharmacotherapy, consideration of combination therapy, and deciding on defining treatment for poor analgesic responders. Duloxetine and pregabalin remain first-line therapy for neuropathic pain in DPN in all 5 of the major published guidelines by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, American Academy of Neurology, European Federation of Neurological Societies, National Institute of Clinical Excellence (United Kingdom), and the American Diabetes Association, and their use has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration.

IMPLICATIONS

Clinical recognition of DPN is imperative for allowing timely symptom management to reduce the morbidity associated with this condition.

Duloxetine in Painful Diabetic Neuropathy: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the evidence for duloxetine in the management of painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN).

METHODS

Electronic searches of Medline and PubMed were performed from 2005 till October 2015 using medical subject headings and free-text words. Two independent reviewers extracted the data and assessed the methodological quality of the selected studies.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies met our inclusion criteria and 8 were considered of high quality and were included to this review. Because of heterogeneity of the studies included in this review, statistical pooling of the data was not possible. We found good evidence for use of duloxetine in PDN over placebo and pregabalin but there was no benefit of duloxetine over amitriptyline.

CONCLUSIONS

Duloxetine has a beneficial effect over placebo. Nevertheless, the evidence of superiority of duloxetine over pregabalin and amitriptyline should be explored further as there was only 1 trial for each category. Provided majority of the PDN patients share cardiovascular complications, use of duloxetine will be a good option for treating pain associated with PDN over amitriptyline. Future randomized controlled trials should be designed keeping this in mind.

A Review of the Emotional Aspects of Neuropathic Pain: From Comorbidity to Co-Pathogenesis

Neuropathic pain is characterized by both sensory and affective disturbances, supporting the notion that pain and mood disorders share common pathogenetic mechanisms. Moreover, biological and neuroimaging data show that common brain areas are involved in the modulation of painful and emotional experiences. Improved understanding of the molecular mechanisms underlying the role of neuroinflammation in regulation of affective behavior in neuropathic pain states is important for the development of novel therapeutic strategies. Psychological issues must be considered a factor influencing treatment and outcome in patients with neuropathic pain.

Funding: Pfizer, Italy.

Effects of Pregabalin in Patients with Neuropathic Pain Previously Treated with Gabapentin: A Pooled Analysis of Parallel-Group, Randomized, Placebo-controlled Clinical Trials

OBJECTIVES

This analysis compared the therapeutic response of pregabalin in patients with neuropathic pain (NeP) who had been previously treated with gabapentin to the therapeutic response in patients who had not received gabapentin previously.

METHODS

Data were pooled from 18 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of pregabalin in patients with NeP. Pregabalin-mediated changes in pain and pain-related sleep interference scores, patient global impression of change scores at endpoint, and the occurrence of adverse events were compared between patients who had received gabapentin previously (+GBN) and patients who had not received gabapentin previously (-GBN).

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the -GBN and +GBN cohorts with regard to the extent of pain relief and relief of pain-related sleep interference for any dose of pregabalin (150, 300, 600, or 150 to 600 mg/day) at any time point (6, 8, or 12 weeks). Additionally, there was no significant difference in the distribution of patient global impression of change scores at study endpoint, or the occurrence of adverse events, between the -GBN and +GBN cohorts.

DISCUSSION

The findings presented here support the idea that pregabalin may be used successfully to treat patients with NeP who may be refractory, respond inadequately, or are intolerant to gabapentin. These findings highlight the importance of tailoring treatment of NeP based on individual patient response to different treatments, including the trial of multiple agents within the same mechanistic class.

Combination treatment of neuropathic pain: Danish expert recommendations based on a Delphi process

BACKGROUND

Current Danish treatment algorithms for pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain (NeP) are tricyclic antidepressants (TCA), gabapentin and pregabalin as first-line treatment for the most common NeP conditions. Many patients have insufficient pain relief on monotherapy, but combination therapy had not been included in guidelines until recently. Based on clinical empiricism and scientific evidence, a Delphi consensus process provided a consolidated guidance on pharmacological combination treatment of NeP.

METHODS

A two-round virtual internet-based Delphi process with 6 Danish pain specialists was undertaken. In the first round, questions were answered individually and anonymously, whereas in the second round, the panel openly discussed first round's summary of outcomes. Combinations of pharmacological pain treatments, that is, pregabalin/gabapentin, TCAs, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, opioids, other antiepileptics and cutaneous patches, were assessed based on both scientific and clinical practice experiences. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) grading system was used for evidence rating.

RESULTS

Combination of pregabalin/gabapentin with TCA is useful in patients who do not gain sufficient pain relief or tolerate either drug in high doses, or to improve sleep disturbance. Also, combination of pregabalin/gabapentin and SNRIs is reasonably well documented and experienced by some experts to result in sufficient pain relief and fewer side effects than monotherapy. Good evidence on efficacy was found for the combination of pregabalin/gabapentin or TCAs and opioids, which was also frequently used in clinical practice. The evidence for combining TCAs and SNRIs is insufficient, although sometimes used in clinical practice despite the risk of serotonin syndrome. For localized NeP, combination therapy with cutaneous patches should be considered. There was insufficient scientific evidence for any pharmacologic combination therapies with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors - as well as for other potential combinations.

CONCLUSIONS

The study revealed that combination therapy is widely used in clinical practice and supported by some scientific evidence. However, further studies are needed.

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.

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.

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

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

Current Ideas on the Treatment Of Diabetic Neuropathies

Diabetic neuropathies are common and their prevalence is rising with the growth in the global prevalence of type 2 diabetes. Several patterns of neuropathy have now been described, with diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy (DPN) being the most common. Autonomic neuropathy, entrapment neuropathies including carpal tunnel syndrome and ulnar neuropathy at the elbow pose additional burdens. DPN can be detected in over half of all diabetic subjects and approximately 20% of all patients with DPN also experience neuropathic pain, a complication with major impacts on quality of life. Currently, the only available treatments for DPN are optimal glucose control and pain management, whereas interventions, beyond optimizing hyperglycemic control, to address the underlying polyneuropathy are not available. Here we review current treatment options and new literature relating to DPN, with an emphasis on novel and emerging treatments.

A community pain service solution-focused pain management programme: delivery and preliminary outcome data

1. This article introduces a rationale for a solution-focused approach to a community-based pain management programme (PMP), describing delivery and preliminary outcome data. 2. It suggests PMPs can be feasibly run in the community without necessity for hospital care setting. 3. A community setting is also advantageous in that it allows maintenance of social networks and close third-sector links to support long-term, sustained mental well-being. 4. Solution-focused psychological approaches help the clinician tap into patient expertise and develop rich descriptions of the patient's preferred future, enhancing self-efficacy and empowerment. 5. Evaluation found significant statistical and clinical improvements in pre-post pain self-efficacy, mental well-being and function (but findings were limited by internal and external validity and no significant effect was found on pain levels). 6. Statistically significant change was maintained at 10 weeks for self-efficacy and function (and for the latter, clinically significant change was also maintained); improvements in mental well-being showed maintenance at all measured time points (up to 12 months) in terms of both statistical and clinical significant changes.

Treatment of patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain in China: a double-blind randomised trial of duloxetine vs. placebo

BACKGROUND

Duloxetine has been approved in the United States, European Union and some Asian countries for the treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP). We assessed the efficacy and safety of duloxetine (60 mg once daily) compared with placebo in Chinese patients suffering from DPNP.

METHODS

This was a phase 3, multicenter, randomised, double-blind, parallel, placebo-controlled, 12-week trial of the treatment of DPNP with duloxetine. Subjects were male and female outpatients ≥ 18 years of age with DPNP, as assessed by the Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument, and had a rating of ≥ 4 on the Brief Pain Inventory-Modified Short Form-Severity weekly average pain item. The primary efficacy measure was the reduction in pain severity from baseline to 12 weeks, as measured by the weekly mean of 24-h average pain ratings recorded in the patient's diary. Mean changes from baseline in efficacy measures were analysed by a restricted maximum likelihood-based, mixed-effects model repeated measures approach and by analysis of covariance.

RESULTS

Of the 405 patients randomised, 203 patients were assigned to duloxetine 60 mg once daily and 202 patients were assigned to placebo. Duloxetine-treated patients showed significantly greater pain relief on 24-h average pain ratings compared with placebo-treated patients each week of the 12-week study period [week 12: least squares (LS) mean change duloxetine: -2.40, placebo: -1.97; LS mean change difference (95% confidence interval) = -0.43 (-0.82, -0.04), p = 0.030]. Compared with placebo, patients treated with duloxetine experienced higher rates of nausea (p = 0.010), somnolence (p < 0.001) and asthenia (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Duloxetine-treated patients showed significantly greater pain relief compared with placebo-treated patients over the 12-week study period. Duloxetine was shown in Chinese patients to have a safety profile similar to that found in previous duloxetine trials.

Are there different predictors of analgesic response between antidepressants and anticonvulsants in painful diabetic neuropathy?

BACKGROUND

To investigate baseline demographics and disease characteristics as predictors of the analgesic effect of duloxetine and pregabalin on diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).

METHODS

Based on data from the COMBO-DN study, a multinational clinical trial in DPNP, the potential impact of baseline characteristics on pain relief after 8-week monotherapy with 60 mg/day duloxetine or 300 mg/day pregabalin was assessed using analyses of covariance. Subgroups of interest were characterized regarding their baseline characteristics and efficacy outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 804 patients were evaluated at baseline. A significant interaction with treatment was observed in the mood symptom subgroups with a larger pain reduction in duloxetine-treated patients having no mood symptoms [Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) depression or anxiety subscale score <11; -2.33 (duloxetine); -1.52 (pregabalin); p = 0.024]. There were no significant interactions between treatment for subgroups by age (<65 or ≥65 years), gender, baseline pain severity [Brief Pain Inventory Modified Short Form (BPI-MSF) average pain <6 or ≥6], diabetic neuropathy duration (≤2 or >2 years), baseline haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) (<8% or ≥8%), presence of comorbidities and concomitant medication use.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analyses suggest that the efficacy of duloxetine and pregabalin for initial 8-week treatment in DPNP was consistent across examined subgroups based on demographics and disease characteristics at baseline except for the presence of mood symptoms. Duloxetine treatment appeared to be particularly beneficial in DPNP patients having no mood symptoms.

A review of the clinical utility of duloxetine in the treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain

Diabetes mellitus is a world-wide epidemic with many long-term complications, with neuropathy being the most common. In particular, diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP), can be one of the most distressing complications associated with diabetes, leading to decreases in physical and mental quality of life. Despite the availability of many efficient medications, DPNP remains a challenge to treat, and the optimal sequencing of pharmacotherapy remains unknown. Currently, there are only three medications approved by the US Food and Drug Administration specifically for the management of DPNP. Duloxetine (DUL), a selective serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, is one of these. With the goal of optimizing pharmacotherapy use in DPNP population, a review of current literature was conducted, and the clinical utility of DUL described. Along with early clinical trials, recently published observational studies and pharmacoeconomic models may be useful in guiding decision making by clinicians and managed care organizations. In real-world practice settings, DUL is associated with decreased or similar opioid utilization, increased medication adherence, and similar health care costs compared with current standard of care. DUL has consistently been found to be a cost-effective option over short time-horizons. Currently, the long-term cost-effectiveness of DUL is unknown. Evidence derived from randomized clinical trials, real-world observations, and economic models support the use of DUL as a first-line treatment option from the perspective of the patient, clinician, and managed care payer.

Pharmacological treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathy

Pain modulation is a key treatment goal for diabetic peripheral neuropathy patients. Guidelines have recommended antidepressant, anticonvulsant, analgesic, and topical medications-both approved and off-label-to reduce pain in this population.

A dietary intervention for chronic diabetic neuropathy pain: a randomized controlled pilot study

Background:

Diabetic neuropathy is a common and often debilitating condition for which available treatments are limited. Because a low-fat plant-based diet has been shown to improve glycemic control in individuals with type 2 diabetes, we hypothesized that such a diet would reduce painful symptoms of diabetic neuropathy.

Methods:

In this 20-week pilot study, individuals with type 2 diabetes and painful diabetic neuropathy were randomly assigned to two groups. The intervention group was asked to follow a low-fat, plant-based diet, with weekly classes for support in following the prescribed diet, and to take a vitamin B12 supplement. The control group was asked to take the same vitamin B12 supplement, but received no other intervention. At baseline, midpoint and 20 weeks, clinical, laboratory and questionnaire data were collected. Questionnaires included an analog ‘worst pain' scale, Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument, global impression scale, Short Form McGill Pain Questionnaire, Neuropathy Total Symptom Score, a weekly pain diary and Norfolk Quality of Life Questionnaire.

Results:

After 20 weeks, body weight change with the intervention was −6.4 kg (95% confidence interval (CI) −9.4 to −3.4, P<0.001) in an effect size analysis. Electrochemical skin conductance in the foot improved by an average of 12.4 microseimens (95% CI 1.2–23.6, P=0.03) with the intervention in an effect size analysis. The between-group difference in change in pain, as measured by the McGill pain questionnaire, was −8.2 points (95% CI −16.1 to −0.3, P=0.04). Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument questionnaire score change was −1.6 points (95% CI −3.0 to −0.2, P=0.03).

Conclusions:

Improvements were seen in some clinical and pain measures. This pilot study suggests the potential value of a plant-based diet intervention, including weekly support classes, for treating painful diabetic neuropathy.

Efficacy and safety of 40 mg or 60 mg duloxetine in Japanese adults with diabetic neuropathic pain: Results from a randomized, 52-week, open-label study

Introduction

To examine the long‐term efficacy and safety of duloxetine in the treatment of Japanese patients with diabetic neuropathic pain, we carried out a 52‐week, randomized, open‐label extension of a 12‐week, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study.

Materials and Methods

Japanese adults with diabetic neuropathic pain who completed the double‐blind study were eligible for this long‐term study, carried out at 71 sites in Japan (March 2008 to March 2010). Participants (n = 258) were re‐randomized (1:1) to 40 mg/day or 60 mg/day duloxetine. Pain (Brief Pain Inventory severity and interference), quality of life (Patient's Global Impression of Improvement), and safety (primary outcome; adverse events, vital signs, metabolic measures) were measured.

Results

Significant (P < 0.0001) and sustained improvements (change ± standard deviation; n = 257) were observed in Brief Pain Inventory severity (average pain score −2.1 ± 1.7). Improvements were also seen in Brief Pain Inventory interference (mean of subscores −0.96 ± 1.52) and Patient's Global Impression of Improvement (−0.9 ± 1.1) scores; these scores decreased significantly (P < 0.0001) during the long‐term study. Frequently reported adverse events included somnolence (13.6%), constipation (13.2%) and nausea (10.5%). Increases were observed in plasma glucose, glycosylated hemoglobin and total cholesterol levels, and in bodyweight and heart rate; however, none of these were clinically meaningful. Overall, there were no clinically significant safety concerns.

Conclusions

This is the first publication of a long‐term study carried out in Asia with an entirely Japanese patient population to suggest that long‐term duloxetine therapy for diabetic neuropathic pain is effective and has an acceptable safety profile.

Effectiveness of duloxetine compared with pregabalin and gabapentin in diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain: results from a German observational study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of duloxetine (DLX) and the anticonvulsants pregabalin (PGB) and gabapentin (GBP) for the treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP) in routine clinical care.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data from a 6-month, noninterventional study involving 2575 patients in whom treatment of DPNP was initiated with or changed to DLX, PGB, or GBP (n=1523) were analyzed post hoc; patients treated with other medications or combinations were excluded from this analysis. Propensity scoring was used to compare patient groups, assessing Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), Clinical and Patient Global Impression (CGI/PGI), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), and the Short Form Health Survey (SF 12).

RESULTS

Mean median daily dosage over 6 months was 53.9 mg for DLX (N=931), 173.5 mg for PGB (N=248), and 727.8 mg for GBP (N=351). BPI average pain severity (last observation carried forward, mean [SD]) decreased by 2.3 [2.30] points for DLX patients, and by 1.9 [2.22] in PGB, and 1.1 [2.15] in GBP patients. This difference remained statistically significant (DLX vs. PGB: P=0.029; DLX vs. GBP: P<0.001) after adjustment by propensity scores. Similar findings were also seen for the BPI interference score, CGI and PGI, the HADS anxiety score, the HADS depression score.

DISCUSSION

When compared with DLX, the low doses of PGB and GBP used in this noninterventional study might have contributed to the lower effectiveness found for both anticonvulsants in the treatment of patients with DPNP.

Pregabalin for painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy: strategies for dosing, monotherapy vs. combination therapy, treatment-refractory patients, and adverse events

OBJECTIVE

Primary care physicians face significant challenges when treating painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (pDPN). The physician must determine the best dosing strategy, consider the use of combination therapy, and decide how best to treat patients who have responded poorly to other treatment options in the past. With a focus on these issues, this paper will review the use of pregabalin for the treatment of pDPN in order to provide physicians with clinical data needed to develop, in combination with real-world prescribing data, effective treatment strategies for this common but challenging type of pain.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A formal PubMed search, along with a search of unpublished data from the Pfizer clinical trial database, was used to identify papers describing results from clinical trials of pregabalin in patients with pDPN. Papers were selected for inclusion in the review if they addressed the use of pregabalin in the context of a head-to-head treatment comparison, use in refractory patients, or as part of combination therapy. A discussion of pregabalin dosing and adverse events is also presented.

CONCLUSIONS

There is some difference with respect to the maximum approved dose of pregabalin for the treatment of pDPN in the United States (300 mg/day) and European Union (600 mg/day), though clinical data demonstrate that pregabalin doses >300 mg/day may be beneficial in some patients. Pregabalin has shown efficacy (and is approved) as a monotherapy for pDPN, although several guidelines recommend combination therapy for challenging cases. However, evidence to support combination therapy is sparse and the decision of monotherapy vs. combination therapy should be at the physician's discretion. There are data demonstrating the efficacy of pregabalin in some patients with pDPN who have not responded to other pharmacological treatments, including those unresponsive to treatment with gabapentin. Clinical guidelines acknowledge the paucity of head-to-head data among treatment options, but consistently recommend pregabalin as a first-tier treatment for pDPN.

Diabetic neuropathic pain: Physiopathology and treatment

Diabetic neuropathy is a common complication of both type 1 and type 2 diabetes, which affects over 90% of the diabetic patients. Although pain is one of the main symptoms of diabetic neuropathy, its pathophysiological mechanisms are not yet fully known. It is widely accepted that the toxic effects of hyperglycemia play an important role in the development of this complication, but several other hypotheses have been postulated. The management of diabetic neuropathic pain consists basically in excluding other causes of painful peripheral neuropathy, improving glycemic control as a prophylactic therapy and using medications to alleviate pain. First line drugs for pain relief include anticonvulsants, such as pregabalin and gabapentin and antidepressants, especially those that act to inhibit the reuptake of serotonin and noradrenaline. In addition, there is experimental and clinical evidence that opioids can be helpful in pain control, mainly if associated with first line drugs. Other agents, including for topical application, such as capsaicin cream and lidocaine patches, have also been proposed to be useful as adjuvants in the control of diabetic neuropathic pain, but the clinical evidence is insufficient to support their use. In conclusion, a better understanding of the mechanisms underlying diabetic neuropathic pain will contribute to the search of new therapies, but also to the improvement of the guidelines to optimize pain control with the drugs currently available.