Dataset Information

GaPP2, a multicentre randomised controlled trial of the efficacy of gabapentin for the management of chronic pelvic pain in women: study protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Chronic pelvic pain (CPP) affects more than 1?million UK women with associated healthcare costs of £158?million annually. Current evidence supporting interventions when no underlying pathology is identified is very limited and treatment is frequently inadequate. Gabapentin (a GABA analogue) is efficacious and often well tolerated in other chronic pain conditions. We have completed a successful pilot randomised controlled trial Gabapentin for Pelvic Pain 1 (GaPP1) and here describe the protocol for our definitive multicentre trial to assess the efficacy of gabapentin in the management of CPP in women Gabapentin for Pelvic Pain 2 (GaPP2).

Methods and analysis

We plan to perform a double-blind placebo-controlled randomised multicentre clinical trial, recruiting 300 women with CPP from up to 40 National Health Service hospitals within the UK. After randomisation, women will titrate their medication (gabapentin or placebo) over a 4-week period to a maximum of 2700?mg or placebo equivalent and will then maintain a stable dose for a 12-week period. Response to treatment will be monitored with validated questionnaires and coprimary outcome measures of average and worst pain scores will be employed. The primary objective is to test the hypothesis that treatment with gabapentin has the potential to provide an effective oral treatment to alleviate pain in women with CPP in the absence of any obvious pelvic pathology.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethical approval has been obtained from the Coventry and Warwick Research Ethics Committee (REC 15/WM/0036). Data will be presented at international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals. We will make the information obtained from the study available to the public through national bodies and charities.

Trial registration number

ISRCTN77451762; Pre-results.

SUBMITTER: Vincent K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5879736 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

GaPP2, a multicentre randomised controlled trial of the efficacy of gabapentin for the management of chronic pelvic pain in women: study protocol.

Vincent Katy K Baranowski Andrew A Bhattacharya Siladitya S Birch Judy J Cheong Ying Y Cregg Roman R Daniels Jane J Hewitt Catherine A CA Macfarlane Gary J GJ Middleton Lee L Szubert Wojciech W Tracey Irene I Williams Amanda C de C ACC Horne Andrew W AW

BMJ open 20180131 1

<h4>Introduction</h4>Chronic pelvic pain (CPP) affects more than 1 million UK women with associated healthcare costs of £158 million annually. Current evidence supporting interventions when no underlying pathology is identified is very limited and treatment is frequently inadequate. Gabapentin (a GABA analogue) is efficacious and often well tolerated in other chronic pain conditions. We have completed a successful pilot randomised controlled trial Gabapentin for Pelvic Pain 1 (GaPP1) and here de ...[more]

PMID: 29391360

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundChronic pelvic pain affects 2-24% of women worldwide and evidence for medical treatments is scarce. Gabapentin is effective in treating some chronic pain conditions. We aimed to measure the efficacy and safety of gabapentin in women with chronic pelvic pain and no obvious pelvic pathology.MethodsWe performed a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial in 39 UK hospital centres. Eligible participants were women with chronic pelvic pain (with or without dysmenorrhoea or dyspareunia) of at least 3 months duration. Inclusion criteria were 18-50 years of age, use or willingness to use contraception to avoid pregnancy, and no obvious pelvic pathology at laparoscopy, which must have taken place at least 2 weeks before consent but less than 36 months previously. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive gabapentin (titrated to a maximum dose of 2700 mg daily) or matching placebo for 16 weeks. The online randomisation system minimised allocations by presence or absence of dysmenorrhoea, psychological distress, current use of hormonal contraceptives, and hospital centre. The appearance, route, and administration of the assigned intervention were identical in both groups. Patients, clinicians, and research staff were unaware of the trial group assignments throughout the trial. Participants were unmasked once they had provided all outcome data at week 16-17, or sooner if a serious adverse event requiring knowledge of the study drug occurred. The dual primary outcome measures were worst and average pain scores assessed separately on a numerical rating scale in weeks 13-16 after randomisation, in the intention-to-treat population. Self-reported adverse events were assessed according to intention-to-treat principles. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISCRTN77451762.FindingsParticipants were screened between Nov 30, 2015, and March 6, 2019, and 306 were randomly assigned (153 to gabapentin and 153 to placebo). There were no significant between-group differences in both worst and average numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores at 13-16 weeks after randomisation. The mean worst NRS pain score was 7·1 (standard deviation [SD] 2·6) in the gabapentin group and 7·4 (SD 2·2) in the placebo group. Mean change from baseline was -1·4 (SD 2·3) in the gabapentin group and -1·2 (SD 2·1) in the placebo group (adjusted mean difference -0·20 [97·5% CI -0·81 to 0·42]; p=0·47). The mean average NRS pain score was 4·3 (SD 2·3) in the gabapentin group and 4·5 (SD 2·2) in the placebo group. Mean change from baseline was -1·1 (SD 2·0) in the gabapentin group and -0·9 (SD 1·8) in the placebo group (adjusted mean difference -0·18 [97·5% CI -0·71 to 0·35]; p=0·45). More women had a serious adverse event in the gabapentin group than in the placebo group (10 [7%] of 153 in the gabapentin group compared with 3 [2%] of 153 in the placebo group; p=0·04). Dizziness, drowsiness, and visual disturbances were more common in the gabapentin group.InterpretationThis study was adequately powered, but treatment with gabapentin did not result in significantly lower pain scores in women with chronic pelvic pain, and was associated with higher rates of side-effects than placebo. Given the increasing reports of abuse and evidence of potential harms associated with gabapentin use, it is important that clinicians consider alternative treatment options to off-label gabapentin for the management of chronic pelvic pain and no obvious pelvic pathology.FundingNational Institute for Health Research.

Project description:IntroductionGabapentin has potential analgesic benefits in patients with neuropathic pain, such as post-herpetic neuralgia and diabetic peripheral neuropathy neuropathic pain. However, its efficacy in women with chronic pelvic pain (CPP) remains contradictory. In the present study, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to ascertain the efficacy of this treatment.MethodsWe systematically reviewed RCTs published in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases, up to July 2021. These articles compared gabapentin with placebo or any other active treatment for CPP in women, with 'the change in pain scores from the baseline during the first 3 and 6 months of treatment' taken as the primary outcome. We considered reductions equivalent to 1.0 cm for primary outcomes to be clinically important.ResultsFour studies, comprising 469 participants, were included in our meta-analysis. Results revealed that the gabapentin group had significantly higher change in pain intensity scores from baseline to 3 months [weighted mean difference (WMD) - 0.61 cm; 95% confidence interval (CI) - 0.97 to - 0.25; I2 = 0%; p = 0.0009] and 6 months (WMD - 1.38 cm; 95% CI - 1.89 to - 0.88; I2 = 0%; p < 0.00001), relative to the control group. The difference of 6-month pooled result was more clinically important. Results from analysis of secondary outcomes showed that gabapentin had no beneficial efficacy during the first 3 months of treatment. Although gabapentin treatment was associated with a higher risk of dizziness and somnolence, no statistically significant differences were observed with regards to the total incidence of adverse events.ConclusionsOverall, gabapentin could be a potential treatment option for CPP in women. However, as a pilot study, further studies are needed to explore the longer-term benefits and definite safety of this therapy in the future.Registration numberPROSPERO registration number CRD42021249421.

Project description:PurposeWe determined whether abnormal autonomic nervous system innervation of the bladder underlies IC (interstitial cystitis)/BPS (bladder pain syndrome) differently than other chronic pelvic pain.Materials and methodsIn this institutional review board approved protocol 39 healthy controls and 134 subjects were enrolled, including 36 with IC/BPS, 14 with myofascial pelvic pain and 42 with IC/BPS plus myofascial pelvic pain. Three subjects were excluded from study. Autonomic nervous system evaluations included deep breathing, the Valsalva maneuver, and the tilt table and sudomotor tests. The latter evaluates autonomic neuropathy. A modified validated composite autonomic laboratory score was applied.ResultsMedian age in the IC/BPS group was 47.5 years (range 21 to 78), greater than in healthy controls (34 years, range 20 to 75, p = 0.006), the myofascial pelvic pain group (33 years, range 22 to 56, p = 0.004) and the IC/BPS plus myofascial pelvic pain group (38 years, range 18 to 64, p = 0.03). Body mass index did not significantly differ but the myofascial pelvic pain and IC/BPS plus myofascial pelvic pain groups had a higher body mass index than healthy controls (p = 0.05 and 0.03, respectively). Cardiovascular and adrenergic indexes did not differ. The tilt table test showed more orthostatic intolerance in all chronic pelvic pain groups. Tilt table test diagnoses (orthostatic hypotension, postural tachycardia syndrome and reflex syncope) were rare. Baseline heart rate was higher in all chronic pelvic pain groups (p = 0.004). Compared to healthy controls all myofascial pelvic pain groups showed significantly more clear-cut autonomic neuropathy, defined as a sweat score of 3 or greater (vs IC/BPS plus myofascial pelvic pain p = 0.007 and vs myofascial pelvic pain p = 0.03).ConclusionsSome chronic pelvic pain types show autonomic neuropathy and some show vagal withdrawal. In all types orthostatic intolerance likely reflects central sensitization and perhaps catastrophizing. Some of these findings suggest novel therapeutic targets.

Project description:BackgroundChronic pelvic pain with various etiologies and mechanisms affects men and women and is a major challenge. Monotherapy is often unsuccessful for chronic pelvic pain, and combinations of different classes of medications are frequently prescribed, with the expectation of improved outcomes. Although a number of combination trials for chronic pelvic pain have been reported, we are not aware of any systematic reviews of the available evidence on combination drug therapy for chronic pelvic pain.ObjectiveWe have developed a protocol for a systematic review to evaluate available evidence of the efficacy and safety of drug combinations for chronic pelvic pain.MethodsThis systematic review will involve a detailed search of randomized controlled trials investigating drug combinations to treat chronic pelvic pain in adults. The databases searched will include the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE from their inception until the date the searches are run to identify relevant studies. The primary outcome will be pain relief measured using validated scoring tools. Secondary outcomes, where reported, will include the following: adverse events, serious adverse events, sexual function, quality of life, and depression and anxiety. Methodological quality of each included study will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool.ResultsThe systematic review defined by this protocol is expected to synthesize available good quality evidence on combination drug therapy in chronic pelvic pain, which may help guide future research and treatment choices for patients and their health care providers.ConclusionsThis review will provide a clearer understanding of the efficacy and safety of combination pharmacological therapy for chronic pelvic pain.Trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42020192231; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=192231.International registered report identifier (irrid)PRR1-10.2196/21909.

Project description:BackgroundEndometriosis (where endometrial-like tissue is found outside the uterus) affects ~ 176 million women worldwide and can lead to debilitating pelvic pain. Three subtypes of endometriosis exist, with ~ 80% of women having superficial peritoneal endometriosis (SPE). Endometriosis is diagnosed by laparoscopy and, if SPE is found, gynaecologists usually remove it surgically. However, many women get limited pain relief from surgical removal of SPE. We plan to undertake a future large trial where women who have only SPE found at initial laparoscopy are randomly allocated to have surgical removal (excision or ablation) of SPE, or not. Ultimately, we want to determine whether surgical removal improves overall symptoms and quality of life, or whether surgery is of no benefit, exacerbates symptoms, or even causes harm. The primary objective of this feasibility study is to determine what proportion of women with suspected SPE undergoing diagnostic laparoscopy will agree to randomisation. The secondary objectives are to determine if there are differences in key prognostic parameters between eligible women that agree to be randomised and those that decline; how many women having laparoscopy for investigation of chronic pelvic pain are eligible for the trial; the range of treatment effects and variability in outcomes and the most acceptable methods of recruitment, randomisation and assessment tools.MethodsWe will recruit up to 90 women with suspected SPE undergoing diagnostic laparoscopy over a 9-month recruitment period in four Scottish hospitals and randomise them 1:1 to either diagnostic laparoscopy alone (with a sham port to achieve blinding of the allocation) or surgical removal of endometriosis. Baseline characteristics, e.g. age, index of social deprivation, ethnicity, and intensity/duration of pain will be collected. Participants will be followed up by online questionnaires assessing pain, physical and emotional function at baseline, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months.DiscussionRecruitment to a randomised controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of surgery for endometriosis may be challenging because of preconceived ideas about treatment success amongst patients and clinicians. We have designed this study to assess feasibility of recruitment and to inform the design of our future definitive trial.Trial registrationClincicalTrials.gov, NCT04081532 STATUS: Recruiting.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:This protocol presents the rationale and design for a trial evaluating the efficacy of intranasal oxytocin in improving pain and function among women with chronic pelvic musculoskeletal pain. Oxytocin is a neuropeptide traditionally recognised for involvement in labour, delivery and lactation. Novel evidence suggests that oxytocin decreases pain sensitivity in humans. While oxytocin administration has been reported to lower pain sensitivity among patients experiencing chronic back pain, headache, constipation and colon pain, no research has evaluated the association between intranasal oxytocin and chronic pelvic musculoskeletal pain. The association between oxytocin and pain may differ in women with chronic pelvic musculoskeletal pain relative to other chronic pain conditions because of the abundance of oxytocin receptors in the uterus. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:This is a prospective, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, within-participants crossover trial. 50 women with chronic pelvic musculoskeletal pain will be recruited through a local chronic pain centre and gynaecology clinics. Women will complete baseline measures and be randomised to an experimental or control condition that involve 2?weeks of self-administering twice-daily doses of 24?IU intranasal oxytocin or placebo, respectively. Women will then undergo a 2-week washout period before crossing over to receive the condition that they had not yet received. The primary outcome will be pain and function measured using the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form. Secondary outcomes include emotional function, sleep disturbance and global impression of change. This trial will provide data on the 14-day safety and side-effect profile of intranasal oxytocin self-administered as an adjuvant treatment for chronic pelvic musculoskeletal pain. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This trial was granted approval from Health Canada and the University of Calgary Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board, and is registered online at ClinicalTrials.gov (#NCT02888574). Results will be disseminated to healthcare professionals through peer-reviewed publications and to the general public through press releases. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT02888574; Pre-results.

Dataset Information

GaPP2, a multicentre randomised controlled trial of the efficacy of gabapentin for the management of chronic pelvic pain in women: study protocol.

Introduction

Methods and analysis

Ethics and dissemination

Trial registration number

Publications

GaPP2, a multicentre randomised controlled trial of the efficacy of gabapentin for the management of chronic pelvic pain in women: study protocol.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets