Structural Design of Multi-joint Foldable Robot Manipulator for Remote Inspection in Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (EAST)

Baoyuan Wu,Weibin Guo,Yi Liu,Qiang Zhang,Ling Zhou,Qingquan Yan,Zhong Zheng,Zengfu Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48036-7_72

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Pregabalin for Postherpetic Neuralgia in A Population of Chinese Patients

Quanzhong Liu,Haibo Chen,Liyan Xi,Zhen Hong,Li He,Yi Fu,Hong Fang,Ningxiu Shang,Ping Yan,Dongsheng Fan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/papr.12413

IF: 3.079

2015-01-01

Pain Practice

Abstract:Background and purposeCurrently, there are limited options for treatment of postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) patients in China. While pregabalin is an effective treatment option for PHN in several countries, there is limited information on its efficacy in Chinese patients.MethodsThis was an 8-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in Chinese patients with PHN randomized (1:1) to pregabalin 300 mg/day or placebo. Primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline in mean pain score (Daily Pain Rating Scale; 0 = no pain' to 10 = worst possible pain'). Secondary efficacy endpoints included change from baseline in overall pain intensity score, by visual analog scale (VAS; 0 = no pain' to 100 = worst possible pain') and daily sleep interference score (0 = pain does not interfere with sleep' to 10 = completely interferes').ResultsA total of 220 patients were randomized and received treatment (111 pregabalin and 109 placebo). Improvement in mean pain score with pregabalin was significantly greater than placebo, least squares mean difference (95% CI), -0.71 (-1.08, -0.34); P = 0.0002. Improvements in VAS and sleep interference score at endpoint were significantly greater with pregabalin than placebo, least squares mean difference (95% CI), -8.18 (-11.99, -4.37); P < 0.0001, and -0.54 (-0.93, -0.14); P = 0.0079, respectively. Adverse events were consistent with current product labeling, with dizziness the most commonly reported adverse event (24.3% of pregabalin-treated patients).ConclusionPregabalin improved measures of pain and sleep, and is well tolerated in Chinese patients with PHN. These results may inform physicians treating patients with PHN in China.
Two Cases of Pregabalin Neurotoxicity in Chronic Kidney Disease Patients.

Dong-Won Lee,Hyeon Jeong Lee,Hyun-Jung Kim,Se-Ho Chang,Dong Jun Park

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ndtplus/sfq219

2011-01-01

Clinical Kidney Journal

Abstract:Sir We report two cases of newly presenting pregabalin neurotoxicity in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients. A 67-year-old man was referred to our nephrology department for consultation. He had been admitted to the department of orthopedics because of spinal stenosis and had undergone surgery 5 weeks earlier. He had started hemodialysis 3 months previously. Upon presentation, he was in a deep drowsy mental state. He was also suffering from generalized myoclonic jerk, aphasia and dysarthria of several days duration. We did not detect a brain lesion on magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography. No medications were being given that could have induced his neurologic symptoms and signs. No laboratory abnormalities were detected that would explain his neurologic deficits. However, pregabalin had been started at a dosage of 300 mg/day 2 weeks before presentation, and the dosage had been increased to 450 mg/day 7 days previously. We concluded that his neurologic deficits were the result of pregabalin toxicity. Pregabalin was immediately withdrawn and an additional three hemodialysis sessions were performed, after which the patient became mentally alert and the generalized myoclonus, aphasia and dysarthria completely disappeared. The second case is that of a 43-year-old man who was admitted for evaluation of nausea, vomiting and general weakness. He was diagnosed with diabetes mellitus and CKD Stage 4. Three days after admission, he complained of pain around the posterior neck region and in both shoulders. He was diagnosed with fibromyalgia and commenced therapy with pregabalin. After receiving a 75 mg/day dose of pregabalin for 2 days, he developed a drowsy mental state and myoclonus of both upper extremities was detected. His calculated creatinine clearance (CCr) by Cockcroft–Gault formula was 25.7 mL/min. We suspected pregabalin toxicity and immediately withdrew it. Thereafter, he fully recovered from the drowsiness, disorientation and myoclonus. Pregabalin is well absorbed orally and has a bioavailability of >90%. It is completely excreted into the urine without hepatic metabolism. It is usually suggested that pregabalin doses be decreased by ∼50% for each 50% decline in CCr to achieve similar plasma drug concentrations in patients with impaired renal function [1]. Pregabalin toxicity in CKD patients has very rarely been reported [2–4]. Two cases have occurred in hemodialysis patients, whereas one case occurred in a patient undergoing peritoneal dialysis. Our first patient was also undergoing hemodialysis, whereas the second one was a CKD Stage 4 patient. To the best of our knowledge, there have been no reports of pregabalin toxicity in a Stage 4 CKD patient. In our first patient, although the initial dosage of pregabalin was high, there were no severe symptoms and signs before the increase in dosage. This might have been the result of drug removal by regular hemodialysis. Although we reduced the dosage of pregabalin in accordance with his renal function in the other patient, pregabalin neurotoxicity did occur. We think that a 75 mg/day dosage might not increase the serum level of pregabalin enough to induce neurologic impairment, although we did not measure the drug level in the serum. One should exercise prudence when prescribing this drug in a CKD patient and adjust the dosage in accordance with renal function. The drug should be immediately withdrawn if neurologic symptoms and signs appear.
Dose–response of pregabalin for diabetic peripheral neuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, and fibromyalgia

Lesley M. Arnold,Bill H. McCarberg,Andrew G. Clair,Ed Whalen,Neal Thomas,Anamaria Jorga,Lynne Pauer,Richard Vissing,Peter W. Park

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00325481.2017.1384691

2017-10-16

Postgraduate Medicine

Abstract:OBJECTIVES: The pregabalin dose-response for pain, Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), and sleep quality measures in painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (pDPN), postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), and fibromyalgia (FM) is relevant for physicians treating these patients. This analysis aimed to demonstrate the dose-response of pregabalin for each indication and describe the onset (incidence), onset/continuation (prevalence), and resolution of adverse events (AEs) occurring during treatment.METHODS: Data from 14 placebo-controlled, fixed-dose pregabalin trials in pDPN, PHN, and FM were pooled within each indication. Patients had mean baseline pain scores ≥6 on an 11-point numeric rating scale. A hyperbolic Emax dose-response model examined the dose-response of pregabalin for pain, PGIC, and sleep quality. Safety assessments included onset and prevalence of common AEs each week, and resolution in the first 2 months of treatment.RESULTS: In all indications, the likelihood of patients experiencing pain relief and improvements in PGIC and sleep quality increased in a dose-dependent manner with increasing doses. In all indications, new incidences of dizziness and somnolence were highest after 1 week of treatment, with few subsequent new reports at a given dose. Prevalence rates decreased steadily after 1 week of treatment. In FM, new onset weight gain emerged 6-8 weeks following treatment; prevalence rates generally increased then remained steady over time. With the exception of weight gain, many AEs resolved in month 1.CONCLUSION: The dose-response of pregabalin for pain, PGIC, and sleep quality was demonstrated, highlighting the benefit of achieving the maximum recommended dose of 300 mg/day for pDPN, 300-600 mg/day for PHN, and 300-450 mg/day for FM. Common AEs are generally seen within 1 week of starting treatment, with few subsequent new reports at a given dose. New onset weight gain occurs after 6 weeks of treatment, reinforcing the need for regular monitoring of weight.

medicine, general & internal
Efficacy of Pregabalin in the Treatment of Postherpetic Neuralgia : a Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Jun Yin,Yuanming Pan,Zhenhua Zeng,Jianguo Guo,Juan Yang,Zhiying Feng

2016-01-01

Abstract:We aimed to summarize the efficacy of pregabalin in the treatment of postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) in pain reduction, sleep improvement and overall improvement of the patients in published studies. A literature search for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) investigating the efficacy of pregabalin for PHN was carried out in PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane database. For each trial met the inclusion criteria, study design, treatment comparators, dosage and duration, patient demographics and efficacy outcomes were extracted. The primary end point was treatment efficacy outcomes and the secondary end points included endpoint mean sleep interference score, percentage of 30% or 50% pain responders, and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC). A total of 5 RCTs with 9 different dosing groups involving 811 patients in the pregabalin group and 814 patients in the control group were included. The pooled SMD of mean pain score reductions was -0.651 (95% CI, -0.866, -0.435, P<0.001) in the pregabalin group compared with the placebo group. Higher dosing regimens resulted in greater reduction in pain score within a certain study but were not consistent among studies. Higher rate of patients with more than 30% and 50% pain score reduction in the pregabalin group vs. the placebo group. Significant benefits in mean sleep interference score and PGIC were observed in the pregabalin group vs. the control group. Higher dosing regimens yielded more improvement within each study but were not consistent among different studies. Pregabalin is effective in reducing the mean pain score and sleep interference score, increasing the percentage of 30% and 50% pain responders in comparison with placebo. Future studies are warranted to elucidate the effect of different dosing regimens on the treatment outcome.
Benefits and harms of pregabalin in the management of neuropathic pain: a rapid review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials

Igho J Onakpoya,Elizabeth T Thomas,Joseph J Lee,Ben Goldacre,Carl J Heneghan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023600

IF: 3.006

2019-01-21

BMJ Open

Abstract:Objective: To assess the benefits and harms of pregabalin in the management of neuropathic pain. Design: Rapid review and meta-analysis of phase III, randomised, placebo-controlled trials. Participants: Adults aged 18 years and above with neuropathic pain defined according to the International Association for the Study of Pain criteria. Interventions: Pregabalin or placebo. Primary and secondary outcome measures: Our primary outcomes were pain (as measured using validated scales) and adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were sleep disturbance, quality of life, Patient Global Impression of Change, Clinician Global Impression scale, anxiety and depression scores, overall discontinuations and discontinuations because of adverse events. Results: We included 28 trials comprising 6087 participants. The neuropathic pain conditions studied were diabetic peripheral neuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, herpes zoster, sciatica (radicular pain), poststroke pain and spinal cord injury-related pain. Patients who took pregabalin reported significant reductions in pain (numerical rating scale (NRS)) compared with placebo (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.49 (95% CI -0.66 to -0.32, p<0.00001), very low quality evidence). Pregabalin significantly reduced sleep interference scores (NRS) compared with placebo (SMD -0.38 (95% CI -0.50 to -0.26, p<0.00001), moderate quality evidence. Pregabalin significantly increased the risk of adverse events compared with placebo (RR 1.33 (95% CI 1.23 to 1.44, p<0.00001, low quality evidence)). The risks of experiencing weight gain, somnolence, dizziness, peripheral oedema, fatigue, visual disturbances, ataxia, non-peripheral oedema, vertigo and euphoria were significantly increased with pregabalin. Pregabalin was significantly more likely than placebo to lead to discontinuation of the drug because of adverse events (RR 1.91 (95% CI 1.54 to 2.37, p<0.00001), low quality evidence). Conclusion: Pregabalin has beneficial effects on some symptoms of neuropathic pain. However, its use significantly increases the risk of a number of adverse events and discontinuation due to adverse events. The quality of the evidence from journal publications is low.
Efficacy of pregabalin for peripheral neuropathic pain: results of an 8-week, flexible-dose, double-blind, placebo-controlled study conducted in China.

Yuzhou Guan,Xinsheng Ding,Yan Cheng,Dongsheng Fan,Lan Tan,Yongjun Wang,Zhongxin Zhao,Zhen Hong,Dong Zhou,Xiaoping Pan,Shengdi Chen,Andrew Martin,Haiyun Tang,Liying Cui

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2011.02.007

IF: 3.637

2011-01-01

Clinical Therapeutics

Abstract:Several classes of medications such as tricyclic antidepressants, anticonvulsants, narcotic analgesics, and α2-δ ligands, such as pregabalin, have been reported to be efficacious in the treatment of painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) and postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) in whites. However, no large double-blind, placebo-controlled trials have been reported that evaluated the efficacy of pregabalin for the treatment of neuropathic pain in a Chinese population in China.The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of flexible-dose pregabalin in treatment of Chinese patients diagnosed with painful DPN or PHN.This was a double-blind, parallel-group study in which patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio and treated with either flexible-dose pregabalin, 150 to 600 mg/d, or corresponding flexible-dose placebo for 8 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was change in the mean pain score based on a daily pain rating scale (DPRS; ranging from 0 [no pain] to 10 [worst possible pain]). Secondary end points included Daily Sleep Interference scale, short form-McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ) scale, and the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) and Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGIC) scales. Adverse events and physical and laboratory examination results were also collected.Pregabalin and placebo treatment groups were well-matched in terms of demographic and patient characteristics. On the primary outcome, end point change in mean DPRS score, treatment with pregabalin (N = 206) resulted in significant improvement compared with results with placebo (N = 102), with a least squares mean difference score of -0.6 (P = 0.005). With regard to responder rates, 64% and 52% of patients treated with pregabalin and placebo, respectively, reported ≥30% improvement in DPRS scores (P = 0.04). Treatment with pregabalin also resulted in significant efficacy compared with that of placebo on secondary measures, including SF-MPQ VAS score (P = 0.012), SF-MPQ present pain intensity index score (P = 0.003), sleep interference score (P = 0.023), and PGIC and CGIC scores (P = 0.004 and P = 0.001, respectively). Adverse events were observed in 50.0% of pregabalin patients and 40.2% of placebo patients (P = 0.105), with the most common adverse event being dizziness (11.2%).Study results suggest that relative to placebo, pregabalin in daily doses of 150 to 600 mg/d was effective and well tolerated in Chinese patients diagnosed with moderate-to-severe DPN or PHN, indicated through improved pain scores and PGIC scores.
A systematic review of the effectiveness of policies restricting access to pregabalin

Brett R. Stacey,Jonathan Liss,Regina Behar,Alesia Sadosky,Bruce Parsons,Elizabeth T. Masters,Patrick Hlavacek

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2503-x

2017-08-25

BMC Health Services Research

Abstract:BackgroundFormularies often employ restriction policies to reduce pharmacy costs. Pregabalin, an alpha-2-delta ligand, is approved for treatment of fibromyalgia (FM); neuropathic pain (NeP) due to postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), diabetic peripheral neuropathy (pDPN), spinal cord injury; and as adjunct therapy for partial onset seizures. Pregabalin is endorsed as first-line therapy for these indications by several US and EU medical professional societies. However, restriction policies such as prior authorization (PA) and step therapy (ST) often favor less costly generic pain medications over pregabalin.MethodsA structured literature search (PubMed, past 11 years) was conducted to evaluate whether restriction policies against pregabalin support real-world economic and healthcare utilization benefits.ResultsSearch criteria identified three claims analyses and a modeling study that evaluated patients with NeP and/or FM with and without PA restrictions; three other studies included patients with FM and NeP in plans with ST requirements, and one evaluated a mail order requirement program. All studies evaluated outcomes during follow-up periods of 6 months or longer. Overall, PA, ST, and mail order restriction policies effectively reduced pregabalin usage, but the effects were inconsistent with reducing pharmacy costs and were non-significant for total disease-related medical costs. Two studies (one PA; one ST) reported significantly higher disease-related costs in restricted plans. The modeling study failed to demonstrate cost savings with PA. Opioid usage was higher in PA-restricted plans (two studies). The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and several professional NeP guidelines recommend opioid use only in cases when other non-opioid pain therapies have proven ineffective. New US Government taskforce guidelines now seek to reduce opioid exposure. Additionally, in both ST studies, gabapentin utilization (a common ST edit) was significantly increased. Both studies had substantial proportions of FM and pDPN patients and the only pain condition gabapentin is approved to treat in the United States is PHN.ConclusionPA and ST restriction policies significantly decrease utilization of pregabalin, but do not consistently demonstrate cost savings for US health plans. More research is needed to evaluate whether these policies may lead to increased opioid usage as found in some studies.Trial registrationN/A.

health care sciences & services
Fixed dose combination of low dose pregabalin and duloxetine, or pregabalin monotherapy for neuropathic pain: A double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study

Krishnaprasad K,Sunil Dutt,Pankaj Rattan,Ankit Dadhania,Ram Gupta,Deepa Joshi,Ashutosh Kakkad,Altaf Makwana,Pankaj Jha

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.130345.1

2023-03-30

Abstract:Background: Treatment of neuropathic pain is challenging. Pregabalin and duloxetine are used as first-line therapy. Various international guidelines recommend a combination of first-line agents for the management of neuropathic pain. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a fixed-dose combination (FDC) of low-dose pregabalin and duloxetine compared to pregabalin monotherapy at week 7 in patients with moderate to severe neuropathic pain. Methods: This was a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy parallel-group non-inferiority study conducted at 17 sites across India. Three hundred and twenty-eight adult patients with moderate to severe neuropathic pain were randomized in a ratio of 1:1 to receive a FDC of pregabalin and duloxetine or pregabalin monotherapy for 7 weeks followed by a one-week follow-up. The pregabalin-duloxetine combination was initiated at 50 plus 20 mg per day and gradually titrated to a maximum of 75mg plus 30mg twice daily. Pregabalin was initiated at 75mg/day and gradually titrated to a maximum of 150mg twice daily. The main efficacy outcome was a mean change in pain intensity at the end of 7 weeks. Results: Two hundred and ninety-eight patients completed the study, 148 in the pregabalin-duloxetine group and 150 in the pregabalin group. The mean change in daily pain at 7 weeks was as follows: -4.49 with FDC and -4.66 with pregabalin (p<0.0001). The non-inferiority of a low-dose FDC compared to pregabalin monotherapy was demonstrated at the end of the study. The incidence of dizziness and somnolence was comparable between both treatments. A higher frequency of peripheral oedema was observed with pregabalin monotherapy than in the FDC group (p>0.05). Conclusions: A FDC of low doses of pregabalin and duloxetine and high dose of pregabalin monotherapy achieved similar analgesia with dizziness, and somnolence as the most frequent adverse event. Trial registration: CTRI/2020/09/027555.
A meta-epidemiological study on the reported treatment effect of pregabalin in neuropathic pain trials over time

Emma T. L. Cheng,Mohammad Cheik-Hussein,Noelle Lin,Adriane M. Lewin,James H. McAuley,Ian A. Harris

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280593

IF: 3.7

2023-01-20

PLoS ONE

Abstract:Background Pregabalin is a drug used to treat neuropathic pain, and its use has increased substantially since 2007. Early trials found a strong treatment effect on pain for post-herpetic neuralgia and diabetic neuropathy. However more recent studies have failed to replicate these results. Methods This meta-epidemiological study aimed to assess change in the reported effectiveness of pregabalin in neuropathic pain trials over time, and if a change is present, determine any associated factors. Data sources We performed electronic searches for published trials in Medline, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases; and unpublished trials on ClinicalTrials.gov, the EU Clinical Trials Register, and the Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry with no restrictions. Study selection We included randomized, placebo-controlled trials of pregabalin for treatment of neuropathic pain in adults. Data extraction and synthesis Two authors independently extracted study data: sample size and mean baseline, end-point and change in pain scores with measures of variance, trial end year, publication year, clinical indication, funding source, country of study, treatment duration, treatment dose, mean age and percentage male. Primary outcome measure We defined treatment effect as the mean difference in pain scores between pregabalin and placebo groups at trial end-point and assessed for change over time using a random-effects meta-regression, adjusted for sample size, indication, treatment duration (weeks) and treatment dose. Results We included 38 randomized published trials (9038 participants) and found that between 2003 and 2020, the reported treatment effect of pregabalin decreased by 0.4 points (95% CI: 0.3 to 0.6; p<0.001) on an 11-point pain scale per 5-year interval, from 1.3 points (95% CI: 1.0 to 1.5) in trials conducted in 2001–2005, to 0.3 (95% CI: -0.1 to 0.7) in trials conducted in 2016–2020. The reported treatment effect was lower than the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of 1.7 points across all time periods, doses and most indications and was not found to be associated with study characteristics. Conclusions The reported treatment effect or analgesic efficacy of pregabalin from clinical trials has diminished over time. Clinical recommendations may need to be re-evaluated to account for recent evidence and to consider whether pregabalin therapy is indicated.

multidisciplinary sciences
The role of intensive care units.

J. Gilligan,D. Mccleave,L. Worthley,L. Price

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1445-2197.1976.TB03237.X

2008-01-21

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Surgery

Abstract:The indications for intensive care are discussed. Selection of patients should be based upon the apparent reversibility of disease processes and the likelihood of producing worthwhile relief of suffering. Admission statistics for one II-bed unit are also presented, and survival rates exceeding 90% of three "model" conditions-namely, fat embolism, tetanus and Gullain-Barré syndrome-are reported. The hospital costs for treating critically ill patients are approximately three times those for treating the "average" patient.
Neuropathic pain: Evidence based recommendations

Xavier Moisset

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lpm.2024.104232

Abstract:Neuropathic pain continues to be a significant problem that lacks effective solutions for every single patient. In 2015, international guidelines (NeuPSIG) were published, while the French recommendations were updated in 2020. The purpose of this minireview is to provide an update on the process of developing evidence-based recommendations and explore potential changes to the current recommendations. Primary treatments for neuropathic pain include selective serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) such as duloxetine and venlafaxine, gabapentin, tricyclic antidepressants, as well as topical lidocaine and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, which are specifically suggested for focal peripheral neuropathic pain. Pregabalin is a first line treatment according to international guidelines but second-line in the more recent French guidelines, due to lower efficacy seen in more recent studies and misuse risk. Additionally, tramadol, combination therapies, and psychotherapy as adjuncts are proposed second line; high-concentration capsaicin patches, and botulinum toxin A are proposed specifically for focal peripheral neuropathic pain. In cases where primary and secondary treatments prove insufficient, third-line options come into play. These include high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) targeting the motor cortex, spinal cord stimulation, and the use of strong opioids when no alternative is available. To ensure optimal management of neuropathic pain in real-life situations, it is imperative to disseminate these recommendations widely and secure the acceptance of practitioners. By doing so, we can bridge the gap between theory and practice, and enhance the overall care and treatment of individuals suffering from neuropathic pain.
Efficacy of Combination Therapy with Pregabalin in Neuropathic Pain: A Preclinical Study in the Rat L5 Spinal Nerve Ligation Model

Kazutaka Nozawa,Yusuke Karasawa,Yuka Shidahara,Takahiro Ushida

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S383981

IF: 2.8319

2022-10-31

Journal of Pain Research

Abstract:Kazutaka Nozawa, 1 Yusuke Karasawa, 1 Yuka Shidahara, 2 Takahiro Ushida 3 1 Medical Affairs, Viatris Pharmaceuticals Japan Inc., Minato-ku, Tokyo, Japan; 2 Bioscience Business Division, KAC Co., Ltd, Ritto, Shiga, Japan; 3 Multidisciplinary Pain Center, Aichi Medical University, Nagakute, Aichi, Japan Correspondence: Kazutaka Nozawa, Medical Affairs, Viatris Pharmaceuticals Japan Inc, Minato-ku, Tokyo, Japan, Tel +81 80-5001-3029, Email Purpose: Neuropathic pain is sometimes difficult to manage because of limited efficacy of analgesic monotherapy even at high doses. Combination therapy may help address this issue, but there is little evidence for its effectiveness. Therefore, we evaluated the efficacy of combination therapy with pregabalin, an anchor drug for treating neuropathic pain, using the rat L5 spinal nerve ligation model. Methods: Experiments were performed on four-week-old L5 spinal nerve ligated male Sprague-Dawley rats. Mechanical allodynia was assessed using the von Frey test, where the 50% withdrawal threshold was evaluated for five drugs: pregabalin, duloxetine, venlafaxine, tramadol, and celecoxib. The single-drug experiment included 112 rats, where each drug was tested independently. Median effective doses (ED 50 s) were determined. Combinations of pregabalin with each of the other four drugs were tested (n=84). The 50% withdrawal threshold in the von Frey test was evaluated. The ED 50 of each combination was determined experimentally. Isobolographic analyses were conducted to assess the synergistic potential of the drug combinations, excluding pregabalin-celecoxib, since the ED 50 of celecoxib could not be determined. Results: In the single-drug experiment, all drugs except celecoxib resulted in a dose-dependent increase in the 50% withdrawal threshold 2 h after administration, with a maximum possible effect ranging from 4.4% to 79.6%. Similarly, all pregabalin combinations demonstrated a dose-dependent increase in the 50% withdrawal threshold, with pregabalin-tramadol showing the greatest increment. Isobolographic analysis of this combination revealed synergistic effects. Specifically, the combination index was γ=0.4 (< 1). Combinations of pregabalin with duloxetine and venlafaxine demonstrated additive (γ=0.9) and antagonistic effects (γ=2.0), respectively. Conclusion: This study demonstrated that combination of pregabalin with tramadol has synergistic antiallodynic effects, while that with duloxetine has additive effects. Moreover, pregabalin combined with venlafaxine was potentially antagonistic. Pregabalin combined with tramadol may serve as a promising drug combination for the effective management of neuropathic pain. Keywords: analgesic, animal model, isobologram, synergistic effects Neuropathic pain is defined as pain caused by a lesion or a disease of the somatosensory nervous system, 1 which alters sensory signals transmitted to the brain and spinal cord. 2 Common characteristics of neuropathic pain include persistent burning and painful sensations, numbness, and increased sensitivity to touch. 2 The global prevalence of this condition is estimated to be 7%–10%. 2,3 Neuropathic pain is frequently associated with sleep disruption and anxiety, negatively affecting patients' overall mental well-being and reducing their quality of life. 4 Pharmacotherapy is currently the most commonly used treatment to manage neuropathic pain. First-line treatments including gabapentinoids such as gabapentin and pregabalin and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) such as duloxetine and venlafaxine and second-line treatment including the weak opioid tramadol are recommended by the International Association for the Study of Pain. 5 In the clinical setting, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) such as celecoxib are prescribed for mixed pain consisting of nociceptive and neuropathic components. However, their efficacy in treating neuropathic pain is limited. 6 Neuropathic pain is associated with the upregulation of voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCCs), specifically the α 2 -δ-1 subunit, in the dorsal horn and dorsal root ganglion of the spinal cord, 7,8 causing increased neural excitation and consequently, neuropathy. 8,9 Pregabalin, an anticonvulsant drug, binds to the α 2 -δ auxiliary subunits to reduce calcium influx, lowering neurotransmitter release and, consequently, overall neuronal excitability. 8 Its neuropathic pain–relieving properties have been demonstrated in several preclinical and clinical studies. 8 SNRIs are thought to relieve neuropathic pain by im -Abstract Truncated-

clinical neurology
[Structure-stability-function relationships of dendritic spines].

H. Kasai,M. Matsuzaki,J. Noguchi,N. Yasumatsu,N. Honkura

Abstract:
Efficacy of pregabalin, amitriptyline, and gabapentin for neuropathic pain

Prachi Dilipkumar Trivedi,Sarojini Posani,Neeharika Balla,Mohommed Mujtaba Sheezan,Ayesha Salim Hussain,Roshni Xavier,Kachhadia Meet Popatbhai,Mohammed Abdul Mateen,Priyadarshi Prajjwal,Mohammed Dheyaa Marsool Marsool

DOI: https://doi.org/10.6026/973206300200386

2024-04-30

Bioinformation

Abstract:Neuropathic pain largely influences the well-being of patients. Anticonvulsant and antidepressant medications, such as Pregabalin, Gabapentin, and Amitriptyline, are routinely prescribed as initial treatments for neuropathic pain. The study sample has a total of 270 patients who meet the inclusion criteria and are further distributed into three equally sized groups (A, B, and C). Group A was administered with Gabapentine 300mg, Group B with Pregabalin 75 mg, and Amitriptyline 10 mg to Group C. The occurrence of any adverse drug response was documented using the ADR reporting form, while the pain of the patient's post-medication was recorded using a numerical pain rating scale (NPRS). The comparison of the NPRS scores of all three groups "by using ANOVA test" both at baseline and after 15 days reveal that the differences between the three groups are statistically insignificant (p > 0.089). However, after one month of continuous use, the difference becomes slightly significant (I.e., p = 0.003). Gabapentin, pregabalin, and amitriptyline demonstrate similar effectiveness in alleviating neuropathic (NeP) pain. The study concludes that gabapentin is superior to both pregabalin and amitriptyline with fewer adverse effects, leading to improved patient adherence for long-term use.
The Cost-Effectiveness of Pregabalin Versus Gabapentin for Peripheral Neuropathic Pain (pNeP) and Postherpetic Neuralgia (PHN) in China

Bruce C M Wang,Dongdong Liu,Wesley E Furnback,Fan Bifa,Peng Dong,Li Xie,Gregory F Guzauskas,Sali Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40122-016-0048-z

Abstract:Introduction: Postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), a type of peripheral neuropathic pain (pNeP), is the most common complication of herpes zoster. The objective of this analysis was to determine the cost-effectiveness of pregabalin compared with gabapentin in pNeP and PHN in China. Methods: We developed a China-localized 12-week simulation model to determine the cost-effectiveness of pregabalin compared to gabapentin in 1000 patients with pNeP and PHN. We utilized a questionnaire of Chinese key opinion leaders to estimate the pre-treatment distribution of pain scores for pNeP and PHN. Treatment outcomes for pregabalin and gabapentin were acquired from the published literature. Results: Treatment with pregabalin lead to 12-week decreases in pain scores of 0.6 (pNeP) and 0.7 (PHN) when compared to patients receiving gabapentin, at an incremental cost per additional day of mild/no pain of $45. The difference in mean days of no or mild pain, moderate pain, and severe pain was 8.8, -5.7, and -3.1, when comparing pregabalin and gabapentin, respectively. Pregabalin had more mean days with a >30% (7.71 days), 40% (8.97 days), and 50% reduction (9.97 days) in pain when compared with gabapentin. In the pNeP scenario, pregabalin was associated with a lower average pain score compared with gabapentin (3.91 vs. 4.55). The difference in mean days of no or mild pain, moderate pain, and severe pain was 9.39, -5.56, and -3.82, when comparing pregabalin and gabapentin, respectively. Pregabalin had more mean days with a >30% (8.77 days), 40% (9.81 days), and 50% reduction (10.55 days) in pain when compared with gabapentin. Conclusion: Pregabalin is an effective treatment for PHN and even for pNeP extensively, but at increased cost. It leads to improved outcomes including lower pain scores and more days with no or mild pain. Funding: Pfizer, China.
Randomised clinical trial: the effects of pregabalin vs placebo on functional dyspepsia

Isariyaphong Kotikula,Nithi Thinrungroj,Kanokwan Pinyopornpanish,Phuripong Kijdamrongthum,Apinya Leerapun,Taned Chitapanarux,Satawat Thongsawat,Ong‐Ard Praisontarangkul

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.16588

2021-08-30

Abstract:BackgroundCurrently, central neuromodulators are among the therapeutic options for the treatment of functional dyspepsia (FD). Pregabalin, a gabapentinoid, is a neuromodulator that could potentially improve visceral hypersensitivity in FD patients. AimTo assess the efficacy and safety of pregabalin for the treatment of FD MethodsWe performed a randomised placebo-controlled study including FD patients who did not respond to proton pump inhibitors. Patients were randomly assigned to receive pregabalin (75 mg daily) or placebo for 8 weeks. The primary outcome was an adequate relief response rate. The secondary outcomes were improvement in quality of life, pain scores in divided categories, and safety profile. ResultsOf 72 patients enrolled, 34 received pregabalin and 38 received placebo. The self-reported adequate relief rates in the pregabalin and placebo groups were 70.6% and 42.1% at week 4 (P = 0.02), and 70.6% and 44.7% at week 8 (P = 0.03), respectively. The reduction in global symptoms in the pregabalin and placebo groups were 11.7 ± 10.6 and 3.7 ± 8.9 points at week 4 (P < 0.01) and 15.1 ± 12.2 and 8.0 ± 10.2 points at week 8 (P = 0.01), respectively. Pregabalin improved the overall quality of life (P = 0.03). The most common adverse event with pregabalin was dizziness, occurring in 51.6% of patients. ConclusionsPregabalin led to significant alleviation of dyspeptic symptoms, especially in patients with predominant epigastric pain .Thaiclinicaltrials.org #TCTR20200404002.

pharmacology & pharmacy,gastroenterology & hepatology
Efficacy of pregabalin and gabapentin for neuropathic pain in spinal-cord injury: an evidence-based evaluation of the literature

Thrasivoulos G. Tzellos,Georgios Papazisis,Ekaterini Amaniti,Dimitrios Kouvelas

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-008-0523-5

2008-07-08

European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

Abstract:BackgroundSpinal-cord injury (SCI) is a leading cause of neuropathic pain (NP). Current pharmaceutical treatments for NP in SCI patients are not effective. Two promising options are gabapentin (GP) and pregabalin (PB). Their predominant mechanism of action is believed to be the inhibition of calcium currents, leading in turn to reduced neurotransmitter release and attenuation of postsynaptic excitability. This could explain much of their efficacy in the treatment of both seizure disorders and pain syndromes. However, evidence for their efficacy in attenuating NP of SCI is still controversial.ObjectiveTo efficiently integrate valid information and provide a basis for rational decision making, through determining PB and GP efficacy in treating NP in SCI.MethodsLiterature was systematically reviewed. Medline, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane Database were searched using search terms ‘gabapentin’, ‘pregabalin’, ‘neurontin’, ‘lyrica’, ‘neuropathic pain’ and ‘spinal-cord injury’. Studies were assessed independently by two authors.ResultsFive studies were eligible for inclusion. Two of them studied PB and three GP. Both GP and PB appear to be efficacious for NP in SCI. A clear comparison between the two drugs could not be performed. The literature data suggest that PB is more efficacious than GP in many important variables for NP in SCI, although PB use is followed by more side effects than GP. PB reduced Visual Analogue Score (VAS) in both studies (P < 0.001 and P = 0.016). On the other hand, for GP a maximum dosage of 3,600 mg/day reduced VAS score (P = 0.000), whereas a maximum dosage of 1,200 mg/day failed to do so.ConclusionThere is a lack of studies comparing GP and PB in treating NP in SCI. This systematic review indicates the possible efficacy of PB and GP in NP of SCI. Recommendations for future research to inform clinical practice should include cost-effectiveness studies and dose-response analysis in order to determine the schema employed and the duration of treatment.

pharmacology & pharmacy
Pregabalin add-on for drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

Mariangela Panebianco,Rebecca Bresnahan,Anthony G Marson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005612.pub5

IF: 8.4

2022-03-31

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract:This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review last published in Issue 7, 2019; it includes two additional studies. Epilepsy is a common neurological disease that affects approximately 1% of the UK population. Approximately one‐third of these people continue to have seizures despite drug treatment. Pregabalin is one of the newer antiepileptic drugs that has been developed to improve outcomes. In this review we summarised the current evidence regarding pregabalin when used as an add‐on treatment for drug‐resistant focal epilepsy. To assess the efficacy and tolerability of pregabalin when used as an add‐on treatment for drug‐resistant focal epilepsy. For the latest update we searched the following databases on 16 November 2020: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 16 November 2020). CRS Web includes randomised or quasi‐randomised, controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Specialised Registers of Cochrane Review Groups, including Epilepsy. We imposed no language restrictions. We contacted the manufacturers of pregabalin and authors in the field to identify any relevant unpublished studies. We included randomised controlled trials comparing pregabalin with placebo or an alternative antiepileptic drug as an add‐on for people of any age with drug‐resistant focal epilepsy. Double‐blind and single‐blind trials were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency; secondary outcomes were seizure freedom, treatment withdrawal for any reason, treatment withdrawal due to adverse effects, and proportion of individuals experiencing adverse effects. Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted the relevant data. Primary analyses were intention‐to‐treat (ITT). We presented summary risk ratios (RRs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We evaluated dose response in regression models. We carried out a risk of bias assessment for each included study using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and assessed the overall certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. We included 11 randomised controlled trials (3949 participants). Nine trials compared pregabalin to placebo. For the primary outcome, participants randomised to pregabalin were significantly more likely to attain a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency compared to placebo (RR 1.95, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.72, 9 trials, 2663 participants, low‐certainty evidence). The odds of response doubled with an increase in dose from 300 mg/day to 600 mg/day (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.74 to 2.28), indicating a dose‐response relationship. Pregabalin was significantly associated with seizure freedom (RR 3.94, 95% CI 1.50 to 10.37, 4 trials, 1125 participants, moderate‐certainty evidence). Participants were significantly more likely to withdraw from pregabalin treatment than placebo for any reason (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.60; 9 trials, 2663 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence) and for adverse effects (RR 2.60, 95% CI 1.86 to 3.64; 9 trials, 2663 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). Three trials compared pregabalin to three active‐control drugs: lamotrigine, eventrate and gabapentin. Participants allocated to pregabalin were significantly more likely to achieve a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency than those allocated to lamotrigine (RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.12; 1 trial, 293 participants) but not those allocated to eventrate (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.11; 1 trial, 509 participants) or gabapentin (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.12; 1 trial, 484 participants). We found no significant differences between pregabalin and lamotrigine for seizure freedom (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.40 to 4.83). However, significantly fewer participants achieved seizure freedom with add‐on pregabalin compared to eventrate (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.85). No data were reported for this outcome for pregabalin versus gabapentin. We detected no significant differences in treatment withdrawal rate for any reason or due to adverse effects, specifically, during either pooled analysis or subgroup analysis. Ataxia, dizziness, somnolence, weight gain, headache and fatigue were significantly associated with pregabalin than in active control. We rated the overall risk of bias in the included studies as low or unclear due to the possibility of publication bias and lack of methodological details provided. We assessed all the studies to be at a high risk of funding bias as they were all sponsored by Pfizer. We rated the certainty of the evidence as very low to moderate using the GRADE approach. For people with drug‐resistant focal epilepsy, pregabalin when used as an add‐on treatment was significantly more effective than placebo at producing a 50% or greater seizu -Abstract Truncated-

medicine, general & internal
Trends in gabapentinoid prescribing in UK primary care using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink: an observational study

Julie Ashworth,Ram Bajpai,Sara Muller,James Bailey,Toby Helliwell,Sarah A Harrisson,Rebecca Whittle,Christian D Mallen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanepe.2022.100579

2023-02-13

Abstract:Background: The UK government reclassified gabapentin and pregabalin as 'controlled drugs' from April 2019. This study aimed to describe the trends in gabapentinoid prescribing before and immediately after reclassification, in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink, an electronic primary care health record broadly representative of the UK. Methods: Separately for gabapentin and pregabalin, we calculated annual incident and prevalent prescribing rates from year of UK approval (April 1997 and 2004 respectively) to September 2019, and monthly incident and prevalent prescribing rates (October 2017-September 2019). Significant changes in temporal trends were determined using joinpoint regression. We also described potential prescribing indications, prior pain-related prescribing, and co-prescribing with potentially interacting medicines. Findings: Incident gabapentin prescribing increased annually, peaking in 2016-17, at 625/100,000 patient years before falling steadily to 2019. Incident pregabalin prescribing peaked at 329/100,000 patient years in 2017-18 and did not fall significantly until 2019. Prevalent gabapentin and pregabalin prescribing increased annually to 2017-18 and 2018-19 respectively, before plateauing. Gabapentinoids were commonly co-prescribed with opioids (60%), antidepressants (52%), benzodiazepines (19%), and Z-drugs (10%). Interpretation: Following a dramatic rise, incident gabapentinoid prescribing has started to fall but the specific impact of reclassification on prescribing rates remains unclear. Limited change in prevalent gabapentinoid prescribing during the 6 months following their reclassification as controlled drugs suggests little immediate impact on continued gabapentinoid prescribing for existing users. Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Research for Patient Benefit Programme. NIHR Applied Research Collaboration West Midlands. NIHR School for Primary Care Research.
Is there a role for combined use of gabapentin and pregabalin in pain control? Too good to be true?

Helen Senderovich,Geetha Jeyapragasan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2017.1391756

2017-12-04

Current Medical Research and Opinion

Abstract:Gabapentin (Neurontin 1 ) and pregabalin (Lyrica 2 ) are first- and second-generation α2δ ligands, respectively, and are both approved for use as adjunctive therapy in pain control. Although they do not bind to gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptors they have been successfully used to treat neuropathic pain conditions. Their mechanism of action is not yet fully understood, but research has demonstrated promising results. Despite their similarities, they have been used in combination in both clinical and research situations, and have been noted to have a synergistic effect in pain control without concern for clinically significant pharmacokinetic interactions. This combined approach can be made use of to reduce the dose of an individual agent, its side effects, and to enhance therapeutic response compared to a single agent. Pharmacokinetics, drug interactions, and adverse reaction to combinations have to be taken into consideration before combination therapy with gabapentin and pregabalin is proposed as first-line treatment in refractory pain situations and in patients with low levels of tolerance for an individual agent.

medicine, general & internal, research & experimental

Structural Design of Multi-joint Foldable Robot Manipulator for Remote Inspection in Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (EAST)

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Pregabalin for Postherpetic Neuralgia in A Population of Chinese Patients

Two Cases of Pregabalin Neurotoxicity in Chronic Kidney Disease Patients.

Dose–response of pregabalin for diabetic peripheral neuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, and fibromyalgia

Efficacy of Pregabalin in the Treatment of Postherpetic Neuralgia : a Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

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

Efficacy of pregabalin for peripheral neuropathic pain: results of an 8-week, flexible-dose, double-blind, placebo-controlled study conducted in China.

A systematic review of the effectiveness of policies restricting access to pregabalin

Fixed dose combination of low dose pregabalin and duloxetine, or pregabalin monotherapy for neuropathic pain: A double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study

A meta-epidemiological study on the reported treatment effect of pregabalin in neuropathic pain trials over time

The role of intensive care units.

Neuropathic pain: Evidence based recommendations

Efficacy of Combination Therapy with Pregabalin in Neuropathic Pain: A Preclinical Study in the Rat L5 Spinal Nerve Ligation Model

[Structure-stability-function relationships of dendritic spines].

Efficacy of pregabalin, amitriptyline, and gabapentin for neuropathic pain

The Cost-Effectiveness of Pregabalin Versus Gabapentin for Peripheral Neuropathic Pain (pNeP) and Postherpetic Neuralgia (PHN) in China

Randomised clinical trial: the effects of pregabalin vs placebo on functional dyspepsia

Efficacy of pregabalin and gabapentin for neuropathic pain in spinal-cord injury: an evidence-based evaluation of the literature

Pregabalin add-on for drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

Trends in gabapentinoid prescribing in UK primary care using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink: an observational study

Is there a role for combined use of gabapentin and pregabalin in pain control? Too good to be true?