New light on the flexner report: notes on the AMA-Carnegie Foundation background.

H. Berliner

Bulletin of the History of Medicine

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.
Efficacy and Safety of Pregabalin for Painful Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy in a Population of Chinese Patients: A Randomized Placebo‐controlled Trial

Yiming Mu,Xiaomin Liu,Quanmin Li,Kangning Chen,Yu Liu,Xiaofeng Lv,Xiangjin Xu,Dongsheng Fan,Ningxiu Shang,Ruoyong Yang,Lynne Pauer,Changyu Pan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-0407.12585

IF: 4.53

2017-01-01

Journal of Diabetes

Abstract:BackgroundLimited information exists regarding the efficacy of pregabalin in Chinese patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (pDPN). MethodsAn 11-week double-blind placebo-controlled trial was performed in Chinese pDPN patients randomized (1 : 1) to 300 mg/day pregabalin or placebo. The primary outcome was change from baseline to endpoint in mean pain score (MPS; 0, no pain; 10, worst possible pain; using the mean of the last seven daily pain scores). Secondary outcomes included weekly MPS and responder status (MPS reduced by 30% or 50% vs baseline). Subgroup analysis assessed patients with severe (7) baseline MPS. Adverse events (AEs) were reported. ResultsIn all, 620 patients were randomized (pregabalin, n = 313; placebo, n = 307). Improvement in MPS with pregabalin versus placebo was not significant (P = 0.0559). Post hoc sensitivity analyses, excluding one patient/site due to Good Clinical Practice (GCP) non-compliance, showed pregabalin significantly improved MPS when excluding the patient (P = 0.0448) or site (P = 0.0142). Pregabalin significantly improved weekly MPS (P = 0.0164) and 50% responders at endpoint (P = 0.0384). Improvement in proportion of 30% responders, impression of change, pain intensity, and sleep did not differ significantly between the treatment groups. In the severe pDPN subpopulation, pregabalin significantly improved MPS versus placebo (P = 0.0040). The most commonly reported AE was dizziness (9.6% vs 3.9% with placebo). ConclusionsPregabalin did not significantly improve the primary measure of pain in the trial. Significant reductions in MPS were observed when excluding the GCP non-compliant patient/site and in the severe pDPN subpopulation. Pregabalin was well tolerated in Chinese pDPN patients.
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.
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.
The Efficacy and Safety of HSK 16149 in Chinese with Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathic Pain-A Randomized, Double-Blinded, Placebo and Pregabalin-Controlled Phase II/III Study

Xiaohui Guo,Tingting Zhang,Geheng Yuan,Li Yukun,Jian Hua Ma,Li Hong-Mei

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2337/db23-224-OR

IF: 7.7

2023-01-01

Diabetes

Abstract:Background: Chronic diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP) is common and difficult to treat. The recommended medications are either inadequate effective or limited by the side effects. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of HSK16149, a potent, selective ligand of the a2δ subunit of voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCC), as analgesia treatment for DPNP. Materials and Methods: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo and active-controlled phase II/III study of patients aged ≥18 years with diabetic peripheral neuropathy in China. Firstly, the patients with moderate to severe pain were randomized to receive placebo, HSK 16149 40,80 mg/d without titration, and HSK16149 120, 160mg/d, pregabalin 300mg/d with 1 week titration on average. Then more patients were recruited and randomized to placebo and two HSK16149 dose groups, continued the treatment for up to 13 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in average daily pain score (ADPS) at week 13. The secondary endpoint was the responder rates as ≥30% and ≥50% improvement in ADPS. Results: Compared with placebo, the pain was reduced since week 1 in HSK16149 groups. At week 13, the mean ADPS change from baseline was -1.23, -2.24 and -2.16 for placebo (n=177), HSK 16149 40mg/d (n=178) and 80mg/d (n=179), showing statistical significance for both HSK groups versus placebo (P<0.0001). The 30% and 50% responder rate were both significantly greater for two HSK groups versus placebo (≥30%: 57.3%, 51.4% versus 31.6%; ≥50%: 32.0%, 36.3% versus 18.1%) at week 13. Most treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) in HSK16149 groups were mild to moderate, and the most frequent TEAEs were dizziness and somnolence, which were always transient and needed no additional treatment. Conclusions: HSK 16149 rapidly improved analgesia without titration and was efficacious in relieving pain in Chinese DPNP patients, and well tolerated. Disclosure X.Guo: None. T.Zhang: None. G.Yuan: None. L.Yukun: None. J.Ma: None. L.Hong-mei: None.
870-P: Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of Crisugabalin Besilate in Chinese patients with Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathic Pain

TINGTING ZHANG,XIAOHUI GUO,HONGMEI LI,JIANHUA MA,LI YUKUN,CHENGXIA JIANG,JIE LIU

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2337/db24-870-p

IF: 7.7

2024-06-14

Diabetes

Abstract:Introduction & Objective: Chronic diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP) exerts serious adverse effects on patients' emotions and quality of life. Crisugabalin has shown favorable efficacy and safety in a phase II/III study in Chinese patients with DPNP. In this open-label extension study, we further evaluated the long-term safety and efficacy of Crisugabalin Besilate. Methods: A total of 301 patients with DPNP from the previous phase II/III trial were enrolled in this 52-week open-label study. Patients received Crisugabalin Besilate capsule 40mg twice daily. Pain intensity was measured with Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), including Pain Rating Index (PRI), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and Present Pain Intensity (PPI). Results: All the efficacy indicators of SF-MPQ showed continuous decrease throughout the trial, and the scores at week 52 were significantly different compared with baseline. The mean changes in PRI and VAS from baseline at week 52 were -2.5±3.97 and -23.4±19.38, respectively, and that the proportion of subjects with PPI ≤ 1 increased by 19% from baseline. 86.4% subjects experienced a total of 1095 Treatment Emergent Adverse Events (TEAEs) during the study, including 203 drug-related TEAEs with the incidence of 38.9%. The most common drug-related TEAEs were dizziness (27.2%) and somnolence (8.3%), and the majority were mild to moderate. The incidence of TEAEs leading to dose reduction was 14.3%. Conclusions: Long-term treatment with Crisugabalin Besilate is effective and safe for pain relief in Chinese patients with DPNP. Disclosure T. Zhang: None. X. Guo: None. H. Li: None. J. Ma: None. L. Yukun: None. C. Jiang: None. J. Liu: None. Funding Haisco Pharmaceutical Group, Sichuan, China

endocrinology & metabolism
Clinical Observation of Pregabalin in the Treatment of Painful Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy

ZHAO Hui,WANG Chong,ZHU Lin,ZHANG Xin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.1008-6315.2012.10.003

2012-01-01

Abstract:Objective To observe the efficacy of pregabalin in the treatment of painful diabeticperipheral neuropathy.Methods In a 8-week study,50 patients were randomly assigned into two groups:the therapy group and the control group.The patients in the therapy group were treated with pregabalin 150 mg/d,and the patients in the control group were treated with carbamazepine 200 mg/d.The dose of pregabalin was increased to 300 mg/d till pain was alleviated in the therapy group,and the dose of carbamazepine was increased to 600 mg/d till pain was alleviated in the control group.The therapeutic effect and VAS score in the two groups were observed and evaluated.Results After 1 and 8 weeks' treatment,the therapeutic effect of therapy group were significantly superior to the control group ( At 1 week:U =2.028,P =0.046 ; At 8 week:U =3.540,P ＜0.001 ).After 1 and 8 weeks' treatment,the VAS scores of therapy group were significantly lower than the control group ( At 1 week:5.13 ± 1.76 vs.6.74 ± 1.52,P ＜ 0.05 ; At 8 week:1.13 ± 0.45 vs 3.27 ± 1.04,P ＜ 0.05).There were 5 patients (20％) and 10 patients (40％) had adverse reaction in the therapy and the control groups respectively.Conclusion Pregabalin is effective and safe for the treatment of painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy.
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 E<sub>max</sub> 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
Comparison of amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin, pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline, and duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin for the treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (OPTION-DM): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised crossover trial

Solomon Tesfaye,Gordon Sloan,Jennifer Petrie,David White,Mike Bradburn,Stephen Julious,Satyan Rajbhandari,Sanjeev Sharma,Gerry Rayman,Ravikanth Gouni,Uazman Alam,Cindy Cooper,Amanda Loban,Katie Sutherland,Rachel Glover,Simon Waterhouse,Emily Turton,Michelle Horspool,Rajiv Gandhi,Deirdre Maguire,Edward B Jude,Syed H Ahmed,Prashanth Vas,Christian Hariman,Claire McDougall,Marion Devers,Vasileios Tsatlidis,Martin Johnson,Andrew S C Rice,Didier Bouhassira,David L Bennett,Dinesh Selvarajah,OPTION-DM trial group

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01472-6

2022-08-27

Abstract:Background: Diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP) is common and often distressing. Most guidelines recommend amitriptyline, duloxetine, pregabalin, or gabapentin as initial analgesic treatment for DPNP, but there is little comparative evidence on which one is best or whether they should be combined. We aimed to assess the efficacy and tolerability of different combinations of first-line drugs for treatment of DPNP. Methods: OPTION-DM was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, crossover trial in patients with DPNP with mean daily pain numerical rating scale (NRS) of 4 or higher (scale is 0-10) from 13 UK centres. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1:1), with a predetermined randomisation schedule stratified by site using permuted blocks of size six or 12, to receive one of six ordered sequences of the three treatment pathways: amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin (A-P), pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline (P-A), and duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin (D-P), each pathway lasting 16 weeks. Monotherapy was given for 6 weeks and was supplemented with the combination medication if there was suboptimal pain relief (NRS >3), reflecting current clinical practice. Both treatments were titrated towards maximum tolerated dose (75 mg per day for amitriptyline, 120 mg per day for duloxetine, and 600 mg per day for pregabalin). The primary outcome was the difference in 7-day average daily pain during the final week of each pathway. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN17545443. Findings: Between Nov 14, 2017, and July 29, 2019, 252 patients were screened, 140 patients were randomly assigned, and 130 started a treatment pathway (with 84 completing at least two pathways) and were analysed for the primary outcome. The 7-day average NRS scores at week 16 decreased from a mean 6·6 (SD 1·5) at baseline to 3·3 (1·8) at week 16 in all three pathways. The mean difference was -0·1 (98·3% CI -0·5 to 0·3) for D-P versus A-P, -0·1 (-0·5 to 0·3) for P-A versus A-P, and 0·0 (-0·4 to 0·4) for P-A versus D-P, and thus not significant. Mean NRS reduction in patients on combination therapy was greater than in those who remained on monotherapy (1·0 [SD 1·3] vs 0·2 [1·5]). Adverse events were predictable for the monotherapies: we observed a significant increase in dizziness in the P-A pathway, nausea in the D-P pathway, and dry mouth in the A-P pathway. Interpretation: To our knowledge, this was the largest and longest ever, head-to-head, crossover neuropathic pain trial. We showed that all three treatment pathways and monotherapies had similar analgesic efficacy. Combination treatment was well tolerated and led to improved pain relief in patients with suboptimal pain control with a monotherapy. Funding: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme.
Efficacy and Safety of Pregabalin in Neuropathic Cancer Pain: a Randomized Control Multicentre Trial

Lei Sima,Bifa Fan,Zhonghuang Xu,Tingjie Zhang,Donglin Jia,Guorong Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.1671-8925.2016.10.011

2016-01-01

Abstract:Objective To examine the efficacy and safety of pregabalin in patients with neuropathic cancer pain (NCP).Methods A prospective randomized control multicenter trial was conducted in five hospitals;from January 2015 to January 2016,one hundred and twenty two eligible inpatients and outpatients were divided into pregablin treatment group (n=60) and control group (n=62).Patients in the pregablin group added pregablin to opiod background analgesia,while those in the control group raised opioid dose instead.The Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NRS) scores,paraesthesia scale scores,Hamilton's Depression (HAMD) scale scores,analgesia dose,patiends satisfaction,and adverse events were recorded 14 d after each treatment.Results After each treatment,the NRS scores were decreased by (2.3 ±1.1) and (1.3±1.5),the paraesthesia scale scores were decreased by (1.6±0.6) and (0.4±0.3),and the HAMD scale scores were decreased by (4.4±1.2) and (2.4±1.0) in the pregablin treatment group and control group,respectively,with significant differences (P＜0.05).Morphine dose for breakthrough pain in pregabalin group was statistically less than that in control group ([30.6±3.5] mg/d vs.[70.9±12.3] mg/d,P＜0.05).Patients satisfaction in the pregablin treatment group was significantly higher than that in the control group (P＜0.05).Pregabalin treatment group had less severe adverse effects (3/56,5％) as compared with control group (10/59,16.1％,P＜0.05).Conclusion Pregabalin has positive roles in patients with NCP already receiving opioid;pregabalin has better pain-control and mood improvement.
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
Modeling an evaluation of the efficacy of the novel neuroanalgesic drug mirogabalin for diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain and postherpetic neuralgia therapy

Li-mian Hong,Jian-min Liu,Lei Lin,Chun-chun Huang,Rui Chen,Wei-wei Lin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejps.2024.106777

IF: 5.112

2024-04-22

European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences

Abstract:Diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP) and postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) are challenging and often intractable complex medical conditions, with a substantial impact on the quality of life. Mirogabalin, a novel voltage-gated Ca 2+ channel α2δ ligand, was approved for the indication of DPNP and PHN. However, the time course of effects has not yet been clarified.We aimed to establish pharmacodynamic and placebo effect models of mirogabalin and pregabalin in DPNP and PHN, and to quantitatively compare the efficacy characteristics (maximum efficacy, onset time, and other pharmacodynamic parameters) and safety of mirogabalin and pregabalin. Public databases were comprehensively searched for randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials. A model-based meta-analysis (MBMA) was developed to describe the time course of drug efficacy and placebo effects. Adverse events were compared using a fixed-effects meta-analysis. Sixteen studies including 5,147 participants were eligible for this study. The placebo effect was relatively high and gradually increased with time, and it required at least eight weeks to reach a plateau. The pharmacodynamic model revealed that the maximum pure efficacy for mirogabalin and pregabalin was approximately -7.85% and -8.86%, respectively; the efficacy of mirogabalin to relieve DPNP and PHN was not superior to that of pregabalin, and both drugs had similar safety. While the rate constant of the onset rate of pregabalin was approximately thrice as high as that of mirogabalin. In addition, the baseline level of pain was an important factor affecting pregabalin efficacy. These findings are helpful in evaluating the clinical extension value of mirogabalin. They suggest that the high placebo effect and the baseline level of pain should be considered when grouping patients in future research and development of voltage-gated Ca 2+ channel neuroanalgesic.

pharmacology & pharmacy
GABA Analogue HSK16149 in Chinese Patients With Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathic Pain: A Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial

Xiaohui Guo,Tingting Zhang,Geheng Yuan,Weifang Zeng,Qingyuan Hu,Jianhua Ma,Yukun Li,Hongmei Li,Yawei Zhang,Jie Liu,Fang Bian,Wei Zhang,Fang Zhang,Shuguang Pang,Ya Li,Xiaohong Wu,Xulei Tang,Keqin Zhang,Tianrong Pan,Honglin Hu,Zhifeng Cheng,Yanjun Wang,Jialin Gao,Jia Sun

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.25614

2024-08-01

Abstract:Importance: Many patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP) experience inadequate relief, despite best available medical treatments. There are no approved and effective therapies for patients with DPNP in China. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of capsules containing γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) analogue HSK16149 in the treatment of Chinese patients with DPNP. Design, setting, and participants: This phase 2 to 3 adaptive randomized clinical trial was multicenter, double blind, and placebo and pregabalin controlled. The trial started on December 10, 2020, and concluded on July 8, 2022. In stage 1, various doses of HSK16149 were evaluated to determine safety and efficacy for stage 2. The second stage then validated the efficacy and safety of the recommended dose. Intervention: In stage 1, enrolled patients (n = 363) were randomized 1:1:1:1:1:1 to 4 HSK16149 doses (40, 80, 120, or 160 mg/d), pregabalin (300 mg/d), or placebo. In stage 2, patients (n = 362) were randomized 1:1:1 to receive HSK16149, 40 or 80 mg/d, or placebo. The final efficacy and safety analysis pooled data from patients receiving the same treatment. Main outcomes and measures: The primary efficacy end point in stage 1 was the change from baseline in average daily pain score (ADPS) at week 5. The primary efficacy end point in stage 2 was the change from baseline in ADPS at week 13. When the final statistical analysis was performed, the P values calculated from the independent data of each phase were combined using the weighted inverse normal method to make statistical inferences. Results: Of 725 randomized patients in the full-analysis set (393 men [54.2%]; mean [SD] age, 58.80 [9.53] years; 700 [96.6%] of Han Chinese ethnicity), 177 received placebo; 178, HSK16149, 40 mg/d; 179, HSK16149, 80 mg/d; 66, HSK16149, 120 mg/d; 63, HSK16149, 160 mg/d; and 62, pregabalin, 300 mg/d. A total of 644 patients (88.8%) completed the study. The 40- and 80-mg/d doses of HSK16149 were recommended in stage 2. At week 13, the ADPS mean (SD) change from baseline was -2.24 (1.55) for the 40-mg/d and -2.16 (1.79) for 80-mg/d groups and -1.23 (1.68) for the placebo group, showing statistical significance for both HSK16149 doses vs placebo (both P < .001). In a safety set (n = 726), 545 patients (75.1%) had adverse events, which were generally mild to moderate, with dizziness and somnolence being the most common. Conclusions and relevance: Forty- and eighty-mg/d doses of HSK16149 were recommended for treating patients with DPNP in China. The efficacy of HSK16149 capsules was superior to placebo in all groups for relieving DPNP and appeared well tolerated. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04647773.
Hypogastric and pelvic nerve activity during the micturition reflex.

W. Bradley,C. Teague

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(17)62168-2

1969-10-01

Abstract:
Comparison of the efficacy of spinal cord stimulation and dorsal root ganglion stimulation in the treatment of painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy: a prospective, cohort-controlled study

Yu-Fei Han,Xi Cong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2024.1366796

IF: 3.4

2024-04-10

Frontiers in Neurology

Abstract:Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) and dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRG-S) in the treatment of painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (PDPN). Methods: In this prospective cohort study, 55 patients received dorsal column spinal cord stimulation (SCS group) and 51 patients received dorsal root spinal cord stimulation (DRG-S group). The primary outcome was a Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) remission rate of ≥50%, and secondary outcomes included the effects of SCS and DRG-S on quality of life scores (EQ-5D-3L), nerve conduction velocity, and HbA1c, respectively. Results: The percentage of NRS remission rate ≥ 50% at 6 months was 80.43 vs. 79.55%, OR (95% CI): 1.06 (0.38–2.97) in the SCS and DRG-S groups, respectively, and the percentage of VAS remission rate ≥ 50% at 12 months was 79.07 vs. 80.95%, OR (95% CI): 0.89 (0.31–2.58). Compared with baseline, there were significant improvements in EQ-5D and EQ-VAS at 6 and 12 months ( p < 0.05), but there was no difference in improvement between the SCS and DRG-S groups ( p > 0.05). Nerve conduction velocities of the common peroneal, peroneal, superficial peroneal, and tibial nerves were significantly improved at 6 and 12 months compared with the preoperative period in both the SCS and PND groups ( p < 0.05). However, at 6 and 12 months, there was no difference in HbA1c between the two groups ( p > 0.05). Conclusion: Both SCS and DRG-S significantly improved pain, quality of life, and lower extremity nerve conduction velocity in patients with PDPN, and there was no difference between the two treatments at 12 months.

neurosciences,clinical neurology
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.
Increase in circulating sclerostin at the early stage of menopausal transition in Japanese women.

S. Matsui,T. Yasui,K. Kasai,K. Keyama,Takeshi Kato,H. Uemura,A. Kuwahara,T. Matsuzaki,M. Irahara

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2015.10.001

IF: 5.11

Maturitas

Abstract:
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.
A Proposed Fuzzy Stability Model to Improve Multi-Hop Routing Protocol

Hamdy A. M. Sayedahmed,H. Hefny,Imane M. A. Fahmy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14569/IJACSA.2017.080420

Abstract:Today’s wide spread use of mobile devices such as: mobile phones, tablets, laptops and many others had driven the wireless Mobile Network growth especially the Mobile Ad hoc Networks commonly referred to as MANETs. Since the routing process is regarded as the core of communication and is associated with the network performance metrics, then its improvement will be revealed in the whole network performance improvement. Due to users’ mobility, limited battery power, and limited transmission ranges, the current routing protocols should consider the stability of routes. Hence, the lack of resources of MANETs may result in imprecise routing decisions. In this paper, the proposed fuzzy model is used to handle imprecision of routing decisions by Fuzzy stability model for Dynamic Source Routing (FSDSR). Regarding the number of hops per route, cache size, end-to-end delay and route discovery time, the results showed that FSDSR has outperformed the state of art protocol Dynamic Source Routing protocol (DSR).
Efficacy and Safety of Trazodone and Gabapentin Fixed-Dose Combination in Patients Affected by Painful Diabetic Neuropathy: Randomized, Controlled, Dose-Finding Study

Solomon Tesfaye,Ponnusamy Saravanan,Edvard Ehler,Karel Zinek,Ilona Palka-Kisielowska,Marcin Nastaj,Pierre Serusclat,Paola Lipone,Andrea Vergallo,Elisa Quarchioni,Fabrizio Calisti,Alessandro Comandini,Agnese Cattaneo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40122-024-00624-3

Abstract:Introduction: Up to 50% of diabetic patients with neuropathy suffer from chronic pain, namely painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN), an unmet medical need with significant impact on quality of life. Gabapentin is widely used for PDN, albeit with frequent dose-limiting effects. Trazodone, an antidepressant with multi-modal action, has shown promising results when given at low doses as an add-on to gabapentin. Upon previous clinical trials and experimental evidence, a fixed-dose combination (FDC) of both compounds, at low doses, was developed for neuropathic pain. Methods: This was a phase II, randomized, double-blind, placebo and reference controlled, dose-finding, multicenter, international, prospective study. Male and female diabetic patients aged 18-75 years and affected by PDN were eligible for enrolment. Patients were randomized (1:1:1:1:2 ratio) to trazodone and gabapentin (Trazo/Gaba) 2.5/25 mg t.i.d. for 8 weeks, Trazo/Gaba 5/50 mg t.i.d. for 8 weeks, Trazo/Gaba 10/100 mg t.i.d. for 8 weeks, gabapentin (Gaba), or placebo (PLB). The aim of the study was to collect preliminary information on the effect of the 3 different FDCs of Trazo/Gaba on pain intensity based on the 11-point numeric rating score (NRS) after 8 weeks of treatment. The secondary objectives were the evaluation of the percentage of responders, neuropathic pain symptoms, anxiety, sleep, quality of life, safety, and tolerability. The primary efficacy endpoint was evaluated with last observation carried out forward (LOCF), using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), including treatment and centers as factors and baseline as covariate and applying linear contrast test, excluding the active treatment. Only if the linear contrast test was significant (p < 0.05), the step-down Dunnett test would be used to determine the minimum effective dose significantly different from PLB. If linearity was not verified, an adjusted ANCOVA model and comparisons with Dunnett test were performed. Before the application of the ANCOVA model, the non-significance of interaction treatment per baseline was verified. Results: A total of 240 patients were included in the modified intention-to-treat (m-ITT) population: 39 in Trazo/Gaba 2.5/25 mg, 38 in Trazo/Gaba 5/50 mg, 37 in Trazo/Gaba 10/100 mg, 83 in PLB, and 43 in Gaba. After 8 weeks of treatment, changes of the average daily pain score based on the 11-point NRS from baseline were - 2.52 ± 2.31 in Trazo/Gaba 2.5/25 mg group, - 2.24 ± 1.96 in Trazo/Gaba 5/50 mg group, - 2.46 ± 2.12 in Trazo/Gaba 10/100 mg group, - 1.92 ± 2.21 in Gaba group, and - 2.02 ± 1.95 in the PLB group. The linear contrast test did not result in significant differences (p > 0.05) among treatment groups. Consequently, the minimum effective dose against PLB was not determined. The multiple comparison with Dunnett adjustment did not show any statistically significant differences vs. PLB after 8 weeks of treatment: Trazo/Gaba 2.5/25 mg (95% confidence interval (CI) - 1.2739, 0.2026; p = 0.1539); Trazo/Gaba 5/50 mg (95% CI - 0.9401, 0.5390; p = 0.5931); Trazo/Gaba 10/100 mg (95% CI - 1.0342, 0.4582; p = 0.4471). However, patients receiving the lowest dose of Trazo/Gaba 2.5/25 mg showed a statistically significant difference to PLB after 6 weeks of treatment (95% CI - 1.6648, - 0.2126; p = 0.0116). Positive results were also found for responder patients, other items related to the pain, anxiety, depression, sleep, and quality of life, consistently in favor to the lowest Trazo/Gaba FDC. Two serious adverse events (SAEs) occurred but were judged unrelated to the study treatment. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were mainly mild-to-moderate in intensity and involved primarily nervous system, gastrointestinal disorders, and investigations. Conclusions: The primary end point of the study was the change from baseline of the average daily pain score based on the 11-point NRS after 8 weeks of treatment. While the primary endpoint was not reached, patients treated with Trazo/Gaba 2.5/25 mg t.i.d. showed statistically significant improvement of pain and other scores after 6 weeks and reported consistent better results in comparison to PLB on primary and secondary endpoints for the overall study duration. According to these results, the lowest dose of Trazo/Gaba FDC may be the best candidate for further clinical development to confirm the potential benefits of the FDC drug for this condition. Clinical trial registration: NCT03749642.

New light on the flexner report: notes on the AMA-Carnegie Foundation background.

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

Efficacy and Safety of Pregabalin for Painful Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy in a Population of Chinese Patients: A Randomized Placebo‐controlled Trial

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

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

The Efficacy and Safety of HSK 16149 in Chinese with Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathic Pain-A Randomized, Double-Blinded, Placebo and Pregabalin-Controlled Phase II/III Study

870-P: Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of Crisugabalin Besilate in Chinese patients with Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathic Pain

Clinical Observation of Pregabalin in the Treatment of Painful Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy

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

Comparison of amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin, pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline, and duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin for the treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (OPTION-DM): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised crossover trial

Efficacy and Safety of Pregabalin in Neuropathic Cancer Pain: a Randomized Control Multicentre Trial

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

Modeling an evaluation of the efficacy of the novel neuroanalgesic drug mirogabalin for diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain and postherpetic neuralgia therapy

GABA Analogue HSK16149 in Chinese Patients With Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathic Pain: A Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial

Hypogastric and pelvic nerve activity during the micturition reflex.

Comparison of the efficacy of spinal cord stimulation and dorsal root ganglion stimulation in the treatment of painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy: a prospective, cohort-controlled study

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

Increase in circulating sclerostin at the early stage of menopausal transition in Japanese women.

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

A Proposed Fuzzy Stability Model to Improve Multi-Hop Routing Protocol

Efficacy and Safety of Trazodone and Gabapentin Fixed-Dose Combination in Patients Affected by Painful Diabetic Neuropathy: Randomized, Controlled, Dose-Finding Study