Dataset Information

Efficacy and Safety of a New Sustained-release Pregabalin Formulation Compared With Immediate-release Pregabalin in Patients With Peripheral Neuropathic Pain: A Randomized Noninferiority Phase 3 Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

This study investigated whether a new sustained-release (SR) pregabalin formulation is noninferior to immediate-release (IR) pregabalin in alleviating peripheral neuropathic pain in Korean patients.

Materials and methods

This was a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled phase 3 study of patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathy or postherpetic neuralgia from 41 sites in South Korea in 2017-2018. Eligible patients were randomized (1:1) to receive once-daily SR pregabalin or twice-daily IR pregabalin (150 to 600 mg/d) in a double-dummy manner for 12 weeks according to a stratified permuted block randomization scheme. The primary endpoint was the Daily Pain Rating Scale score at the end of treatment, averaged from the last 7 available scores.

Results

A total of 319 of 371 (86.0%) randomized patients completed the 12-week treatment (SR pregabalin: n=154; IR pregabalin: n=165; per-protocol set: n=296). The least square mean difference between both groups for the primary endpoint was 0.06 (SE 0.19); (95% confidence interval -0.31 to 0.42), with the lower limit of the confidence interval above the pre-specified margin (-0.78; Pnoninferiority<0.0001). Drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were comparable between both groups. The incidence of drug-related TEAEs leading to treatment discontinuation was low (SR pregabalin: 2.7%; IR pregabalin: 1.1%). No serious drug-related TEAEs or deaths occurred.

Discussion

The results demonstrate that the new once-daily SR pregabalin formulation is noninferior to twice-daily IR pregabalin in reducing peripheral neuropathic pain and is well tolerated in Korean patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathy or postherpetic neuralgia after 12 weeks of treatment.

SUBMITTER: Han KA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8994039 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy and Safety of a New Sustained-release Pregabalin Formulation Compared With Immediate-release Pregabalin in Patients With Peripheral Neuropathic Pain: A Randomized Noninferiority Phase 3 Trial.

Han Kyung Ah KA Lee Yong-Ho YH Son Hyun-Shik HS Song Ki-Ho KH Kim Sang Yong SY Chung Choon Hee CH Jang Hak Chul HC Lee Kwan-Woo KW Cha Bong Yun BY Song Kee-Ho KH Ko Young Kwon YK Lee Pyung-Bok PB Kim Beom Joon BJ Kim Sohee S An Taewon T Kim Yong-Chul YC

The Clinical journal of pain 20220228 5

<h4>Objective</h4>This study investigated whether a new sustained-release (SR) pregabalin formulation is noninferior to immediate-release (IR) pregabalin in alleviating peripheral neuropathic pain in Korean patients.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>This was a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled phase 3 study of patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathy or postherpetic neuralgia from 41 sites in South Korea in 2017-2018. Eligible patients were randomized (1:1) to receive once-daily SR pre ...[more]

PMID: 35220330

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeDuloxetine and pregabalin are recommended as first-line treatments for diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP). However, studies have not reported a direct comparison between duloxetine and pregabalin. We conducted a postmarketing, randomized, double-blind study to assess the noninferiority of duloxetine compared with pregabalin after 12 weeks of treatment in adult patients with DPNP in Japan (NCT02417935).Patients and methodsPatients (N = 303) with distal symmetrical DPNP were randomized to and were administered duloxetine (40-60 mg/day) or pregabalin (300-600 mg/day). The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in weekly mean of the 24-hour average pain score (numeric rating scale [NRS]). Noninferiority of duloxetine compared with pregabalin was assessed with the primary endpoint at week 12. Secondary measures, including night pain and worst pain, Brief Pain Inventory-Severity and Interference rating short form (BPI-SF), Clinical Global Impression of Improvement (CGI-I), Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I), and Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI), health outcome measures (EuroQol 5-Dimension index and VAS), and safety were also assessed.ResultsFor the 24-hour NRS average pain score, the difference between the duloxetine and pregabalin groups was 0.072 (95% CI: - 0.295, 0.439), and the upper bound of the 95% CI (0.439) did not exceed the predefined noninferiority margin (0.51), at the end of the study period. For secondary outcome measures (night pain, worst pain, BPI-SF, CGI-I, PGI-I, NPSI) and health outcome measures, both the duloxetine and pregabalin treatment groups showed an improvement from baseline with no significant between-group difference. Duloxetine and pregabalin were well tolerated and the safety profiles were consistent with previously reported results.ConclusionThis study demonstrated the noninferior efficacy of duloxetine compared with pregabalin in the treatment of adult patients with DPNP. The safety analyses showed an acceptable tolerability based on safety profiles of duloxetine and pregabalin.

Project description:We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of capsaicin 8% patch (QUTENZA™) versus pregabalin in patients with PNP from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) and Personal and Social Services in Scotland, UK. A decision-tree cost-effectiveness model was developed for non-diabetic patients with peripheral neuropathic pain (PNP) who were pregabalin-naïve and had not achieved adequate pain relief or tolerated conventional first- or second-line treatments. Patients entering the model received either a single application of capsaicin 8% patch or titrated daily dosing with pregabalin; after 8 weeks patients were classified as responders, non-responders, or were assumed to discontinue treatment due to intolerable adverse events. Responders continued to receive baseline treatment at intervals observed in clinical practice. Non-responders and those who discontinued treatment were assumed to receive last-line therapy (duloxetine). The base-case time horizon was 2 years. Model inputs for effectiveness, discontinuations and health-state utilities were taken from a head-to-head non-inferiority study (ELEVATE, NCT01713426). Other inputs were obtained from published sources or clinical expert opinion. Costs were expressed in GBP 2013/14. Results were presented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER), i.e. cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Model assumptions were tested with scenario analyses. Parameter uncertainty was tested using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Compared with dose-optimized pregabalin, capsaicin 8% patch was the dominant treatment strategy (total cost difference, -£11; total QALY gain, 0.049). Capsaicin 8% patch was also the dominant treatment strategy versus pregabalin in 6 out of 7 scenario analyses. The model was most sensitive to variation in time to capsaicin 8% patch retreatment (maximum ICER, £7,951/QALY at lower-bound 95% confidence interval). At a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000/QALY, the probability of capsaicin 8% patch being cost-effective versus pregabalin was 97%. Capsaicin 8% patch is a cost-effective treatment option compared with dose-optimized pregabalin in patients with PNP who have failed one or more previous systemic treatments.

Dataset Information

Efficacy and Safety of a New Sustained-release Pregabalin Formulation Compared With Immediate-release Pregabalin in Patients With Peripheral Neuropathic Pain: A Randomized Noninferiority Phase 3 Trial.

Objective

Materials and methods

Results

Discussion

Publications

Efficacy and Safety of a New Sustained-release Pregabalin Formulation Compared With Immediate-release Pregabalin in Patients With Peripheral Neuropathic Pain: A Randomized Noninferiority Phase 3 Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets