Dataset Information

Gabapentin Enacarbil Extended-Release for Alcohol Use Disorder: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Multisite Trial Assessing Efficacy and Safety.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Several single-site alcohol treatment clinical trials have demonstrated efficacy for immediate-release (IR) gabapentin in reducing drinking outcomes among individuals with alcohol dependence. The purpose of this study was to conduct a large, multisite clinical trial of gabapentin enacarbil extended-release (GE-XR) (HORIZANT® ), a gabapentin prodrug formulation, to determine its safety and efficacy in treating alcohol use disorder (AUD). METHODS:Men and women (n = 346) who met DSM-5 criteria for at least moderate AUD were recruited across 10 U.S. clinical sites. Participants received double-blind GE-XR (600 mg twice a day) or placebo and a computerized behavioral intervention (Take Control) for 6 months. Efficacy analyses were prespecified for the last 4 weeks of the treatment period. RESULTS:The GE-XR and placebo groups did not differ significantly on the primary outcome measure, percentage of subjects with no heavy drinking days (28.3 vs. 21.5, respectively, p = 0.157). Similarly, no clinical benefit was found for other drinking measures (percent subjects abstinent, percent days abstinent, percent heavy drinking days, drinks per week, drinks per drinking day), alcohol craving, alcohol-related consequences, sleep problems, smoking, and depression/anxiety symptoms. Common side-effects were fatigue, dizziness, and somnolence. A population pharmacokinetics analysis revealed that patients had lower gabapentin exposure levels compared with those in other studies using a similar dose but for other indications. CONCLUSIONS:Overall, GE-XR at 600 mg twice a day did not reduce alcohol consumption or craving in individuals with AUD. It is possible that, unlike the IR formulation of gabapentin, which showed efficacy in smaller Phase 2 trials at a higher dose, GE-XR is not effective in treating AUD, at least not at doses approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treating other medical conditions.

SUBMITTER: Falk DE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6317996 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Gabapentin Enacarbil Extended-Release for Alcohol Use Disorder: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Multisite Trial Assessing Efficacy and Safety.

Falk Daniel E DE Ryan Megan L ML Fertig Joanne B JB Devine Eric G EG Cruz Ricardo R Brown E Sherwood ES Burns Heather H Salloum Ihsan M IM Newport D Jeffrey DJ Mendelson John J Galloway Gantt G Kampman Kyle K Brooks Catherine C Green Alan I AI Brunette Mary F MF Rosenthal Richard N RN Dunn Kelly E KE Strain Eric C EC Ray Lara L Shoptaw Steven S Ait-Daoud Tiouririne Nassima N Gunderson Erik W EW Ransom Janet J Scott Charles C Leggio Lorenzo L Caras Steven S Mason Barbara J BJ Litten Raye Z RZ

Alcoholism, clinical and experimental research 20181209 1

<h4>Background</h4>Several single-site alcohol treatment clinical trials have demonstrated efficacy for immediate-release (IR) gabapentin in reducing drinking outcomes among individuals with alcohol dependence. The purpose of this study was to conduct a large, multisite clinical trial of gabapentin enacarbil extended-release (GE-XR) (HORIZANT<sup>®</sup> ), a gabapentin prodrug formulation, to determine its safety and efficacy in treating alcohol use disorder (AUD).<h4>Methods</h4>Men and women ...[more]

PMID: 30403402

Similar Datasets

Project description:To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of gabapentin enacarbil (GEn) 1200 mg or 600 mg compared with placebo in subjects with moderate-to-severe primary restless legs syndrome (RLS).This 12-week, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study randomized subjects (1:1:1) to GEn 1200 mg, 600 mg, or placebo. Co-primary endpoints: mean change from baseline in International Restless Legs Scale (IRLS) total score and proportion of responders (rated as "very much" or "much" improved) on the investigator-rated Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale (CGI-I) at Week 12 LOCF for GEn 1200 mg compared with placebo. Secondary endpoints included GEn 600 mg compared with placebo on the IRLS and CGI-I at Week 12 LOCF and subjective measures for sleep. Safety and tolerability assessments included adverse events.325 subjects were randomized (GEn 1200 mg = 113; 600 mg = 115; placebo = 97). GEn 1200 mg significantly improved mean [SD] IRLS total score at Week 12 LOCF (baseline: 23.2 [5.32]; Week 12: 10.2 [8.03]) compared with placebo (baseline: 23.8 [4.58]; Week 12: 14.0 [7.87]; adjusted mean treatment difference [AMTD]: -3.5; p = 0.0015), and significantly more GEn 1200 mg-treated (77.5%) than placebo-treated (44.8%) subjects were CGI-I responders (p < 0.0001). Similar significant results were observed with GEn 600 mg for IRLS (AMTD: -4.3; p < 0.0001) and CGI-I (72.8% compared with 44.8%; p < 0.0001). GEn also significantly improved sleep outcomes (Post-Sleep Questionnaire, Pittsburgh Sleep Diary and Medical Outcomes Sleep Scale) compared with placebo. The most commonly reported adverse events were somnolence (GEn 1200 mg = 18.0%; 600 mg = 21.7%; placebo = 2.1%) and dizziness (GEn 1200 mg = 24.3%; 600 mg = 10.4%; placebo = 5.2%). Dizziness increased with increased dose and led to discontinuation in 2 subjects (GEn 1200 mg, n = 1; GEn 600 mg, n = 1). Somnolence led to discontinuation in 3 subjects (GEn 600 mg).GEn 1200 mg and 600 mg significantly improve RLS symptoms and sleep disturbance compared with placebo and are generally well tolerated.

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.

Dataset Information

Gabapentin Enacarbil Extended-Release for Alcohol Use Disorder: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Multisite Trial Assessing Efficacy and Safety.

Publications

Gabapentin Enacarbil Extended-Release for Alcohol Use Disorder: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Multisite Trial Assessing Efficacy and Safety.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure