Unpublished»Information reported in a systematic review
Year»
Loading references information
This reference is based in information provided by a systematic review reporting unpublished data obtained by the authors. This record has been prepared by collaborators of Epistemonikos.
POPULATION: Diabetic polyneuropathy (n=169/256)
INTERVENTION: Amitriptyline 75 mg (oral) (max daily dose)
COMPARISON: Pregabalin
<b>OBJECTIVES: </b>This study used a randomized withdrawal design to evaluate the efficacy of pregabalin versus placebo for pain relief in patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy inadequately treated by other therapies.<b>METHODS: </b>A total of 665 patients received pregabalin in a 6-week single-blind phase. Two hundred ninety-four patients who achieved a ≥ 30% pain response were randomized to receive pregabalin or placebo in a double-blind phase for a further 13 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change in mean pain score from single-blind baseline to double-blind endpoint for pregabalin versus placebo (last observation carried forward [LOCF]). Secondary endpoints included a baseline observation carried forward (BOCF) analysis of mean pain score; time to loss of pain response; and other assessments of pain, sleep, function, and quality of life (QOL).<b>RESULTS: </b>Pregabalin numerically improved all measures assessed during the single-blind phase. At the end of the double-blind withdrawal phase, there was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of mean pain score (LOCF) between pregabalin and placebo (least squares mean difference, -0.32), although there was a significant difference in the BOCF analysis (least squares mean difference, -0.51). Pregabalin was associated with a significantly longer time to loss of pain response versus placebo during double-blind treatment, and some aspects of sleep and QOL also showed significant improvements with pregabalin.<b>DISCUSSION: </b>This is the first reported placebo-controlled trial of pregabalin in patients with inadequately treated painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Although the primary endpoint was not met, pregabalin was associated with clinically relevant improvements versus placebo in this difficult-to-treat population.
Background Patients with multiple sclerosis ( MS) often report neuropathic pain ( NP- MS). The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of duloxetine as treatment for NP- MS. Methods In this study, 239 adults with NP- MS (duloxetine = 118, placebo = 121) were randomized to duloxetine 60 mg (30 mg for 1 week, then 60 mg for 5 weeks) or placebo once daily for a 6-week acute therapy phase, followed by a 12-week open-label extension phase (duloxetine 30 to 120 mg/day). Eligible patients had MS for ≥ 1 year and a score ≥ 4 on daily average pain intensity ( API) ratings for ≥ 4 of 7 days immediately before randomization. Patients rated API daily on an 11-point numeric scale (0 [no pain] to 10 [worst possible pain]) in an electronic diary. The primary efficacy measure, change in weekly API ratings, was analyzed longitudinally with a mixed-model repeated-measures analysis. Completion, reasons for discontinuation, and treatment-emergent adverse event incidence were compared by Fisher's exact test. Results Duloxetine-treated patients had statistically greater mean improvement in API vs. placebo at Week 6 (−1.83 vs. −1.07, P = 0.001). Treatment completion did not significantly differ between groups. Discontinuation due to adverse events was statistically greater for duloxetine vs. placebo (13.6% vs. 4.1%, P = 0.012). Decreased appetite was reported significantly more often by duloxetine-treated patients (5.9% vs. 0%, P = 0.007). Conclusions This study found analgesic efficacy of duloxetine for NP- MS. Duloxetine is not approved for treatment of this condition. The duloxetine safety profile of this study was consistent with the known profile in other patient populations.
The results of 3 proof-of-concept studies to evaluate carisbamate's efficacy and safety in treating neuropathic pain are presented. In studies 1 (postherpetic neuralgia, n = 91) and 2 (diabetic neuropathy, n = 137), patients received carisbamate 400 mg/day or placebo for 4 weeks and then crossed over to the other treatment for 4 weeks. In study 3 (diabetic neuropathy, higher carisbamate doses), patients (n = 386) were randomized (1:1:1:1) to receive either carisbamate 800 mg/day, 1200 mg/day, pregabalin 300 mg/day or placebo for 15 weeks. Primary efficacy end point was the mean of the last 7 average daily pain scores obtained on days the study drug was taken, for all 3 studies. Least square mean (95% CI) differences between carisbamate and placebo groups on the primary end point were as follows: study 1: -0.512 (-1.32, 0.29) carisbamate 400 mg/day; study 2: -0.307 (-0.94, 0.33) carisbamate 400 mg/day; and study 3: -0.51 (-1.10, 0.08), carisbamate 800 mg/day; -0.55 (-1.13, 0.04), carisbamate 1200 mg/day; and -0.43 (-1.01, 0.15), pregabalin 300 mg/day. Neither carisbamate (all 3 studies) nor pregabalin (study 3) significantly differed from placebo, although multiple secondary end points showed significant improvement in efficacy with carisbamate in studies 1 and 2. Dizziness was the only treatment-emergent adverse event occurring at ≥10% difference in carisbamate groups versus placebo (study 1: 12% vs. 1%; study 3: 14% vs. 4%; study 2: 1% vs. 2%). Carisbamate, although well tolerated, did not demonstrate efficacy in neuropathic pain across these studies, nor did the active comparator pregabalin (study 3).
CONTEXT: Neuropathic pain caused by chemotherapy limits dosing and duration of potentially life-saving anti-cancer treatment and impairs quality of life. Chemotherapeutic neuropathy responds poorly to conventional treatments, and there is an urgent medical need for new treatments. Recent preclinical studies demonstrate that cannabinoid agonists suppress established chemotherapy-evoked neuropathy.
OBJECTIVES: This was a pilot trial to begin to investigate a currently available cannabinoid agent, nabiximols (oral mucosal spray containing cannabinoids), in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced neuropathic pain.
METHODS: A randomized, placebo-controlled crossover pilot study was done in 16 patients with established chemotherapy-induced neuropathic pain. A 0-10 point numeric rating scale for pain intensity (NRS-PI) was used as the primary outcome measure.
RESULTS: When examining the whole group, there was no statistically significant difference between the treatment and the placebo groups on the NRS-PI. A responder analysis demonstrated that there were five participants who reported a two-point or greater reduction in pain that trended toward statistical significance and the number needed to treat was five.
CONCLUSION: Chemotherapy-induced neuropathic pain is particularly resistant to currently available treatments. This pilot trial found a number needed to treat of five and an average decrease of 2.6 on an 11-point NRS-PI in five "responders" (as compared with a decrease of 0.6 with placebo) and supports that it is worthwhile to study nabiximols in a full randomized, placebo-controlled trial of chemotherapy-induced neuropathic pain.
BACKGROUND: Inhibitors of p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase are undergoing evaluation as a novel class of anti-rheumatic drugs, by virtue of their ability to suppress the production of pro-inflammatory cytokines. Emerging data suggests that they may also attenuate peripheral or central sensitization in neuropathic pain. A double-blind, placebo-controlled study was undertaken to evaluate the analgesic efficacy of losmapimod (GW856553), a novel p38[alpha]/[beta] inhibitor, in subjects with neuropathic pain following traumatic peripheral nerve injury. METHODS: One hundred and sixty-eight subjects with pain of at least moderate intensity (average daily score >=4 on an 11-point pain intensity numeric rating scale; PI-NRS) at baseline were randomized to receive oral losmapimod, 7.5 mg BID or placebo for 28 days. Efficacy and safety assessments were undertaken at weekly clinic visits. RESULTS: The mean treatment difference for the change in average daily pain score from baseline to week 4 of treatment based on the PI-NRS was -0.22 (95% CI -0.73, 0.28) in favour of losmapimod over placebo (p = 0.39). There were no statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences between the treatment groups over the 4-week dosing period for either the primary or secondary efficacy variables. There were no unexpected safety or tolerability findings following dosing with losmapimod. CONCLUSIONS: Losmapimod could not be differentiated from placebo in terms of a primary analgesia response in patients with pain following peripheral nerve injury. The lack of response could reflect inadequate exposure at central sites of action or differences between rodent and human with respect to the target or neuropathic pain mechanisms.
Gabapentin enacarbil (GEn) is an actively transported prodrug of gabapentin that provides sustained, dose-proportional exposure to gabapentin. This randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study evaluated the safety and efficacy of 3 different maintenance doses of oral GEn in subjects with postherpetic neuralgia. Adults with a 24-hour average pain intensity score of >=4.0 received GEn 1,200 mg, 2,400 mg, 3,600 mg, or placebo for 14 weeks (including a 1-week up-titration, 12-week maintenance, and 1-week taper). The primary endpoint was change from baseline to end of maintenance treatment in mean 24-hour average pain intensity score. The intent-to-treat population consisted of 371 subjects (GEn 1,200 mg = 107, 2,400 mg = 82, 3,600 mg = 87, placebo = 95). With regard to the primary endpoint, all 3 GEn treatment groups demonstrated a statistically significant difference relative to placebo. The adjusted mean change from baseline for the treatment groups ranged from -2.36 to -2.72 versus -1.66 for the placebo group. Exposure-response modeling suggested an ED50 around 1,200 mg/day, which was consistent with historical findings reported for gabapentin. The most commonly reported adverse events were dizziness and somnolence. All studied doses of GEn significantly improved pain associated with postherpetic neuralgia as compared to placebo and were well tolerated. PERSPECTIVE: GEn provides clinically important pain relief with doses from 1,200 mg to 3,600 mg and is generally well tolerated and efficacious. As an actively transported prodrug of gabapentin, it provides dose-proportional and extended exposure to gabapentin.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of a once-daily gastroretentive formulation of gabapentin (G-GR; 1800 mg). METHODS: This was an 11-week, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled Phase 3 clinical trial in patients with postherpetic neuralgia. Patients underwent a 2-week dose titration, 8 weeks of stable dosing, and 1 week of dose tapering. The primary endpoint was the change in average daily pain intensity score from Baseline to Week 10 using Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF) imputation. RESULTS: Four-hundred and fifty-two patients (mean age 65.6 y, BMI 29 Kg/m) were randomized. Baseline average daily pain intensity score during the week prior to randomization was 6.6 and 6.5 for the G-GR and placebo treatment groups, respectively. Three hundred and seventy-seven patients completed the study (84% G-GR, 83% placebo). G-GR significantly reduced BOCF change in average daily pain intensity compared with placebo (-2.1 vs. -1.6; G-GR vs. placebo, P=0.013). Compared with placebo, more G-GR-treated patients reported "much" or "very much" improvement (patient global impression of change, 43% vs. 34%; P<0.0434), and G-GR reduced sleep interference (-2.3 vs. -1.59; P<0.0001), although neither endpoint was considered statistically significant based on a stringent hierarchical statistical paradigm. Other secondary endpoints showed similar trends. The most common adverse events were dizziness (G-GR, 11.3% vs. placebo, 1.7 %) and somnolence (G-GR, 5.4% vs. placebo, 3.0%). CONCLUSION: Once-daily G-GR 1800 mg was effective and well tolerated for the relief of pain in patients with postherpetic neuralgia.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Central post-stroke pain (CPSP) is a severe chronic neuropathic pain condition defined as a spontaneous pain or allodynia corresponding to a vascular lesion. It usually evolves weeks after stroke, and can distinctively impair the quality of life. Treatment is complex and mostly unsatisfactory. We hypothesized that the anti-epileptic drug levetiracetam (LEV) improves CPSP compared with placebo. The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy and tolerability of LEV in patients with CPSP.
METHODS: In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study design patients with CPSP lasting at least 3 months and a pain score ≥ 4 on the 11-point Likert scale were treated over two 8-week periods with a maximum dose up to 3000 mg LEV or placebo. Primary endpoint was a median pain lowering ≥ 2 in the final treatment week compared with the last baseline week. Secondary outcome measures comprised additional pain ratings, depression, sleep quality, quality of life and patients' global impression of change.
RESULTS: Of 42 patients, 33 [61.5 years (40-76); 38% women] completed the study. Side effects and withdrawals were more frequent in the LEV (n = 5) group than in the placebo group (n = 1). Patients treated with LEV did not show any improvement of pain or changes in secondary outcome parameters compared with placebo.
CONCLUSIONS: LEV is not effective in treatment for CPSP. The mode of action of LEV does not exert an analgesic effect in chronic CPSP.
This reference is based in information provided by a systematic review reporting unpublished data obtained by the authors. This record has been prepared by collaborators of Epistemonikos.
