Plasticity in zwitterionic drugs: the bending properties of Pregabalin and Gabapentin and their hydrates.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Khandavilli UBR
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6608624 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Plasticity in zwitterionic drugs: the bending properties of Pregabalin and Gabapentin and their hydrates.
Khandavilli U B Rao UBR Lusi Matteo M Frawley Patrick J PJ
IUCrJ 20190522 Pt 4
The investigation of mechanical properties in molecular crystals is emerging as a novel area of interest in crystal engineering. Indeed, good mechanical properties are required to manufacture pharmaceutical and technologically relevant substances into usable products. In such endeavour, bendable single crystals help to correlate microscopic structure to macroscopic properties for potential design. The hydrate forms of two anticonvulsant zwitterionic drugs, Pregabalin and Gabapentin, are two exam ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundPregabalin and gabapentin improve neuropathic pain symptoms but there are emerging concerns regarding their misuse. This is more pronounced among patients with substance use disorder, particularly involving opioids. Co-ingestion of gabapentinoids with opioids is increasingly identified in opioid related deaths, however, the molecular mechanism behind this is still unclear. We have sought to determine whether pregabalin or gabapentin directly modulates acute μ receptor signaling, or μ receptor activation by morphine.MethodsThe effects of pregabalin and gabapentin were assessed in HEK 293 cells stably transfected with the human μ receptor. Their effect on morphine induced hyperpolarization, cAMP production and ERK phosphorylation were studied using fluorescent-based membrane potential assay, bioluminescence based CAMYEL assay and ELISA assay, respectively. Pregabalin/gabapentin effects on morphine-induced hyperpolarization were also investigated in AtT20 cells.ResultsPregabalin or gabapentin (1 µM, 100 µM each) did not activate the µ receptor or affect K channel activation or ERK phosphorylation produced by morphine. Neither drug affected the desensitization of K channel activation produced by prolonged (30 min) application of morphine. Gabapentin (1 µM, 100 µM) and pregabalin (1 µM) did not affect inhibition of forskolin-stimulated cAMP production by morphine. However, pregabalin (100 µM) potentiated forskolin mediated cAMP production, although morphine still inhibited cAMP levels with a similar potency to control.DiscussionPregabalin or gabapentin did not activate or modulate µ receptor signaling in three different assays. Our data do not support the hypothesis that gabapentin or pregabalin augment opioid effects through direct or allosteric modulation of the µ receptor. Pregabalin at a high concentration increases cAMP production independent of morphine. The mechanism of enhanced opioid-related harms from co-ingestion of pregabalin or gabapentin with opioids needs further investigation.
| S-EPMC8048397 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGabapentin and pregabalin are commonly prescribed medications to treat pain in patients with diabetic neuropathy. Gabapentin and pregabalin can cause fluid retention, which is hypothesized to be associated with cardiovascular diseases. However, whether long-term use of gabapentin and pregabalin is associated with adverse cardiovascular diseases remains unknown. This study aims to examine the association between gabapentin use, pregabalin use and several adverse cardiovascular events.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study used propensity score matching within patient electronic health records (EHRs) from a multicenter database with 106 million patients from 69 health care organizations in the US. The study population comprised 210,064 patients who had a diagnosis of diabetic neuropathy and were prescribed diabetic neuropathy medications in their EHRs. The exposure cohort comprised patients who were prescribed gabapentin or pregabalin to treat diabetic neuropathy. The comparison cohort comprised patients who were not prescribed either gabapentin or pregabalin but were prescribed other drugs to treat diabetic neuropathy. The outcomes of interest were myocardial infarcts, strokes, heart failure, peripheral vascular disease, and venous thromboembolic events. We calculated hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for 3-month and 5-year risk for adverse cardiovascular events between the propensity score-matched cohorts.ResultsBoth gabapentin and pregabalin were associated with increased risk of 5-year adverse cardiovascular events compared with the comparison group. In patients prescribed gabapentin, the highest risk was observed for deep venous thrombosis (HR: 1.58, 95% CI 1.37-1.82), followed by pulmonary embolism (HR: 1.5, 95% CI 1.27-1.76), peripheral vascular disease (HR: 1.37, 95% CI 1.27-1.47), stroke (HR: 1.31, 95% CI 1.2-1.43), myocardial infarction (HR: 1.25, 95% CI 1.14-1.38) and heart failure (HR: 1.14, 95% CI 1.07-1.21). In patients prescribed pregabalin, the highest risk was observed for deep venous thrombosis (HR: 1.57, 95% CI 1.31-1.88), followed by peripheral vascular disease (HR: 1.35, 95% CI 1.22-1.49), myocardial infarction (HR: 1.29, 95% CI 1.13-1.47), pulmonary embolism (HR: 1.28, 95% CI 1.04-1.59), stroke (HR: 1.26, 95% CI 1.12-1.42), and heart failure (HR: 1.2, 95% CI 1.11-1.3). There were significant associations between short-term (3 month) gabapentin use and heart failure, myocardial infarction, peripheral vascular disease, deep venous thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism. Short-term (3 month) pregabalin use was associated with deep venous thrombosis, peripheral vascular disease.ConclusionIn patients with diabetic neuropathy who were prescribed gabapentin and pregabalin, there is an increased risk for heart failure, myocardial infarction, peripheral vascular disease, stroke, deep venous thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism with long-term use. Our findings suggest that increased risk for adverse cardiovascular events, along with other side effects, the efficacy of pain control and the degree of tolerance of the patient, should be considered when prescribing gabapentin and pregabalin long-term in patients with diabetic neuropathy.
| S-EPMC9438165 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and objectivesThere are limited data examining the real-world use of gabapentin and pregabalin for the treatment of post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN). This study examines dosing patterns, therapy outcomes, healthcare utilization and costs of patients with PHN who initiate treatment with gabapentin or pregabalin.MethodsThis was a retrospective administrative claims data analysis from July 2005 to February 2010. Patients with PHN initiating gabapentin or pregabalin (index therapy) from January 2006 to February 2009 were identified and were observed for 12 months after index therapy initiation. Outcomes were mean daily dosages of the index therapy, attainment of minimally effective dosages of gabapentin (≥ 1,800 mg/day) or pregabalin (≥ 150 and ≥ 300 mg/day) persistence, discontinuation, index therapy switching, addition of neuropathic pain medications to index therapy, and healthcare resource use and costs.Results1,645 patients were identified. The mean daily dosage was 826 mg for gabapentin and 187 mg for pregabalin. Only 52.6 % of patients initiating gabapentin and 56.9 % initiating pregabalin obtained a refill during the post-index period. Approximately 14 % of patients treated with gabapentin reached the target dosage (1,800 mg/day). For pregabalin, 87 % reached ≥ 150 mg/day and 27 % reached ≥ 300 mg/day. On average, patients took 10 weeks to reach 1,800 mg/day gabapentin, and 5.0 and 9.2 weeks to reach ≥ 150 mg/day and ≥ 300 mg/day pregabalin, respectively. Approximately one-third of patients in both index therapy cohorts added a pain medication; more than half added opioids. The percentage of patients switching from either drug (57 %) or adding a therapy (34 %) were similar between index therapy cohorts; opioids were the most common therapy patients switched to or added.ConclusionIt appears that gabapentin and pregabalin are not used effectively to treat PHN. Suboptimal dosing and discontinuation may be associated with supplementary use of other analgesics, especially opioids.
| S-EPMC3586179 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the comparative safety and adjunctive efficacy of pregabalin and gabapentin in reducing seizure frequency in patients with partial-onset seizures based on prestudy modeling showing superior efficacy for pregabalin.MethodsThe design of this comparative efficacy and safety study of pregabalin and gabapentin as adjunctive treatment in adults with refractory partial-onset seizures was randomized, flexible dose, double blind, and parallel group. The study included a 6-week baseline and a 21-week treatment phase. The primary endpoint was the percentage change from baseline in 28-day seizure rate to the treatment phase.ResultsA total of 484 patients were randomized to pregabalin (n = 242) or gabapentin (n = 242). Of these, 359 patients (187 pregabalin, 172 gabapentin) completed the treatment phase. The observed median and mean in percentage change from baseline was -58.65 and -47.7 (SD 48.3) for pregabalin and -57.43 and -45.28 (SD 60.6) for gabapentin. For the primary endpoint, there was no significant difference between treatments. The Hodges-Lehman estimated median difference was 0.0 (95% confidence interval -6.0 to 7.0). Safety profiles were comparable and consistent with prior trials.ConclusionsThe absence of the anticipated efficacy difference based on modeling of prior, nearly identical trials and the larger-than-expected response rates of the 2 antiepileptic drugs were unexpected. These findings raise questions that are potentially important to consider in future comparative efficacy trials.Clinicaltrialsgov identifierNCT00537940.Classification of evidenceThis study provides Class II evidence that for patients with partial seizures enrolled in this study, pregabalin is not superior to gabapentin in reducing seizure frequency. Because of the atypical response rates, the results of this study are poorly generalizable to other epilepsy populations.
| S-EPMC5035985 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Gabapentin and pregabalin are used to manage neuropathic pain, pruritus, and restless legs syndrome in patients on hemodialysis. These patients may be especially predisposed to complications related to these agents, which are renally cleared, but data regarding the risk thereof are lacking.Methods From the US Renal Data System, we identified 140,899 Medicare-covered adults receiving hemodialysis with Part D coverage in 2011. Using Cox regression models in which we adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, duration of exposure, number of medications, and use of potentially confounding concomitant medications, we investigated the association between gabapentin and pregabalin, modeled as separate time-varying exposures, and time to first emergency room visit or hospitalization for altered mental status, fall, and fracture. We evaluated risk according to daily dose categories: gabapentin (>0-100, >100-200, >200-300, and >300 mg) and pregabalin (>0-100 and >100 mg).Results In 2011, 19% and 4% of patients received gabapentin and pregabalin, respectively. Sixty-eight percent of gabapentin or pregabalin users had a diagnosis of neuropathic pain, pruritus, or restless legs syndrome. Gabapentin was associated with 50%, 55%, and 38% higher hazards of altered mental status, fall, and fracture, respectively, in the highest dose category, but even lower dosing was associated with a higher hazard of altered mental status (31%-41%) and fall (26%-30%). Pregabalin was associated with up to 51% and 68% higher hazards of altered mental status and fall, respectively.Conclusions Gabapentin and pregabalin should be used judiciously in patients on hemodialysis, and research to identify the most optimal dosing is warranted.
| S-EPMC6050935 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Gabapentin (GP) and pregabalin (PB) are structurally related compounds and their predominant mechanism of action is the inhibition of calcium currents via high-voltage-activated channels containing the a2d-1 subunit. A2delta ligands are approved for the treatment of pain of diabetic neuropathy and post-herpetic neuralgia in adults and as adjunctive therapy of partial seizures in children. Recently, pregabalin has been approved for treatment of anxiety disorders in Europe. Besides their already approved indications both drugs are promising treatment options for a number of different serious and debilitating diseases, as fibromyalgia, neuropathic pain of spinal cord injury, hot flushes, and essential tremor. In the present review, the unique mechanism of action of the above drugs is critically analyzed and evidence for their future use is provided. Gabapentin and pregabalin can be treatment options for these disorders, however, a clear comparison between the two drugs can not be performed, since there is no direct comparison study. The most common side effects are dizziness and somnolence which are also the most frequent reasons for withdrawal. Recommendations for future studies should include assessment of ideal titration period for GP and PB to reduce incidence of somnolence and dizziness and increase tolerability, cost-effectiveness and dose-response analysis of PB and GP and direct comparison of the two drugs.
| S-EPMC2895293 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundTo compare the efficacy of pregabalin and gabapentin at comparable effective dose levels in patients with refractory partial epilepsy.MethodsEight randomized placebo controlled trials investigating the efficacy of pregabalin (4 studies) and gabapentin (4 studies) over 12 weeks were identified with a systematic literature search. The endpoints of interest were "responder rate" (where response was defined as at least a 50% reduction from baseline in the number of seizures) and "change from baseline in seizure-free days over the last 28 days (SFD)". Results of all trials were analyzed using an indirect comparison approach with placebo as the common comparator. The base-case analysis used the intention-to-treat last observation carried forward method. Two sensitivity analyses were conducted among completer and responder populations.ResultsThe base-case analysis revealed statistically significant differences in response rate in favor of pregabalin 300 mg versus gabapentin 1200 mg (odds ratio, 1.82; 95% confidence interval, 1.02, 3.25) and pregabalin 600 mg versus gabapentin 1800 mg (odds ratio, 2.52; 95% confidence interval, 1.21, 5.27). Both sensitivity analyses supported the findings of the base-case analysis, although statistical significance was not demonstrated. All dose levels of pregabalin (150 mg to 600 mg) were more efficacious than corresponding dosages of gabapentin (900 mg to 2400 mg) in terms of SFD over the last 28 days.ConclusionIn patients with refractory partial epilepsy, pregabalin is likely to be more effective than gabapentin at comparable effective doses, based on clinical response and the number of SFD.
| S-EPMC2989949 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundChronic low back pain (CLBP) is a global health problem, and gabapentin and pregabalin are often used in the treatment of patients without associated radiculopathy or neuropathy. Therefore, determining their efficacy and safety is of enormous value.ObjectiveTo examine the efficacy and safety of using gabapentin and pregabalin for CLBP without radiculopathy or neuropathy.MethodsWe performed a search on the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and Web of Science data bases for clinical trials, cohorts, and case-control studies that evaluated patients with CLBP without radiculopathy or neuropathy for at least eight weeks. The data were extracted and inserted into a previously-prepared Microsoft Excel spreadsheet; the outcomes were evaluated using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool, and the quality of evidence, using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system.ResultsOf the 2,230 articles identified, only 5 were included, totaling 242 participants. In them, pregabalin was slightly less efficacious than amitriptyline, the combination of tramadol/acetaminophen, and celecoxib, and pregabalin added to celecoxib showed no benefit when compared to celecoxib alone (very low evidence for all). On the other hand, although one study with gabapentin did not support its use in a general sample of patients with low back pain, another found a reduction in the pain scale and improved mobility (moderate evidence). No serious adverse events were observed in any of the studies.ConclusionQuality information to support the use of pregabalin or gabapentin in the treatment of CLBP without radiculopathy or neuropathy is lacking, although results may suggest gabapentin as a viable option. More data is needed to fill this current gap in knowledge.
| S-EPMC10306996 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:To analyse the prevalence and incidence of pregabalin and gabapentin (P/G) prescriptions, typical therapeutic uses of P/G with special attention to pain-related diagnoses and discontinuation rates. DESIGN:Secondary data analysis. SETTING:Primary and secondary care in Germany. PARTICIPANTS:Four million patients in the years 2009-2015 (anonymous health insurance data). INTERVENTION:None. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:P/G prescribing rates, P/G prescribing rates associated with pain therapy, analysis of pain-related diagnoses leading to new P/G prescriptions and the discontinuation rate of P/G. RESULTS:In 2015, 1.6% of insured persons received P/G prescriptions. Among the patients with pain first treated with P/G, as few as 25.7% were diagnosed with a typical neuropathic pain disorder. The remaining 74.3% had either not received a diagnosis of neuropathic pain or showed a neuropathic component that was pathophysiologically conceivable but did not support the prescription of P/G. High discontinuation rates were observed (85%). Among the patients who had discontinued the drug, 61.1% did not receive follow-up prescriptions within 2 years. CONCLUSION:The results show that P/G is widely prescribed in cases of chronic pain irrespective of neuropathic pain diagnoses. The high discontinuation rate indicates a lack of therapeutic benefits and/or the occurrence of adverse effects.
| S-EPMC6475154 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Fibromyalgia is a common chronic pain disorder with unclear etiology. No definitive treatment is available for fibromyalgia, and treatment with antidepressants or antiepileptics is often used for symptom management.Using US health care utilization data, a large population-based cohort study was conducted to describe clinical characteristics and medication use patterns in patients diagnosed with fibromyalgia who newly started amitriptyline, duloxetine, gabapentin, or pregabalin.There were 13,404 amitriptyline starters, 18,420 duloxetine starters, 23,268 gabapentin starters, and 19,286 pregabalin starters. The mean age ranged from 48–51 years and 72–84% in each group were women. Back pain was the most frequent comorbidity in all 4 groups (range 48–64%) and hypertension, headache, depression, and sleep disorder were also common. The median daily dose at the start of followup was 25 mg for amitriptyline, 60 mg for duloxetine, 300 mg for gabapentin, and 75 mg for pregabalin, and >60% of patients remained on the same dose throughout the follow up period. Only one-fifth of patients continued the treatment started for ?1 year. The mean number of different prescription drugs at baseline ranged from 8–10 across the groups. More than one-half of patients took opioids and one-third took benzodiazepines, sleep disorder drugs, and muscle relaxants.Patients who started 1 of the 4 common drugs for fibromyalgia similarly had multiple comorbidities and other fibromyalgia-related medication use, but continued the treatment only for a short time. The dose of the 4 drugs was not increased in most patients during the followup period.
| S-EPMC4059353 | biostudies-literature