Previous studies have documented strategies to promote off-label use of drugs using journal publications and other means. Few studies have presented internal company communications that discussed financial reasons for manipulating the scholarly record related to off-label indications. The objective of this study was to build on previous studies to illustrate implementation of a publication strategy by the drug manufacturer for four off-label uses of gabapentin (Neurontin, Pfizer, Inc.): migraine prophylaxis, treatment of bipolar disorders, neuropathic pain, and nociceptive pain.
Background Sciatica can be disabling, and evidence regarding medical treatments is limited. Pregabalin is effective in the treatment of some types of neuropathic pain. This study examined whether pregabalin may reduce the intensity of sciatica. Methods We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of pregabalin in patients with sciatica. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either pregabalin at a dose of 150 mg per day that was adjusted to a maximum dose of 600 mg per day or matching placebo for up to 8 weeks. The primary outcome was the leg-pain intensity score on a 10-point scale (with 0 indicating no pain and 10 the worst possible pain) at week 8; the leg-pain intensity score was also evaluated at week 52, a secondary time point for the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included the extent of disability, back-pain intensity, and quality-of-life measures at prespecified time points over the course of 1 year. Results A total of 209 patients underwent randomization, of whom 108 received pregabalin and 101 received placebo; after randomization, 2 patients in the pregabalin group were determined to be ineligible and were excluded from the analyses. At week 8, the mean unadjusted leg-pain intensity score was 3.7 in the pregabalin group and 3.1 in the placebo group (adjusted mean difference, 0.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.2 to 1.2; P=0.19). At week 52, the mean unadjusted leg-pain intensity score was 3.4 in the pregabalin group and 3.0 in the placebo group (adjusted mean difference, 0.3; 95% CI, -0.5 to 1.0; P=0.46). No significant between-group differences were observed with respect to any secondary outcome at either week 8 or week 52. A total of 227 adverse events were reported in the pregabalin group and 124 in the placebo group. Dizziness was more common in the pregabalin group than in the placebo group. Conclusions Treatment with pregabalin did not significantly reduce the intensity of leg pain associated with sciatica and did not significantly improve other outcomes, as compared with placebo, over the course of 8 weeks. The incidence of adverse events was significantly higher in the pregabalin group than in the placebo group. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia; PRECISE Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12613000530729 .).
PURPOSE: Pregabalin (PRG) is approved for the treatment of neuropathic pain, partial seizures and generalised anxiety disorder in many countries and currently under study for other indications. Supported by case reports and the results of a limited number of studies there is an ongoing debate on the potential of PRG to cause addictive behaviours. However, currently available evidence on this issue is sparse, and any definitive assessment of PRG’s potential for abuse and dependence is not yet in sight. The aim of our study was to identify the number of cases of PRG abuse or dependence reported to the database of a German medical regulatory body and to obtain insights into further usage-specific parameters. METHODS: We conducted a query of the entire database of the German Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArM) regarding reports of PRG abuse or dependence and analysed these cases on the basis of several parameters. RESULTS: A total of 55 reports of PRG abuse or dependence were identified (mean age 36 years, 64 % of reports involved males). The first reports were submitted to BfArM in 2008, and the reporting frequency has increased up to the present. Mean daily PRG dosage was 1424 mg. Current or previous polytoxicomania was present in 40 and 42 % of cases, respectively. Psychiatric diagnoses other than substance-related disorders were reported in 13 (24 %) cases. In about one-third of the patients withdrawal syndromes subsequent to discontinuation of PRG were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Cases of PRG abuse or dependence have been reported to the BfArM since 2008, with a marked increase of such reports in subsequent years. Male sex and a history of polytoxicomania may be possible risk factors for the development of addictive behaviours related to PRG.
The chemical interaction of nine antiepileptic drugs (tiagabine, gabapentin, pregabalin, lamotrigine, zonisamide, valproic acid, valpromide, vigabatrin, progabide) and two endogenous metabolites (4-aminobutanoic acid, 4-hydroxybutanoic acid) with a model of human GABA transporter 1 (hGAT1) is described using the molecular docking method. To establish the role of hGAT1 in chronic pain, tiagabine, a selective hGAT1 inhibitor, was assessed in the in vivo experiments for its antiallodynic properties in two mouse models of neuropathic pain. Docking analyses performed in this study provided the complex binding energies, specific hydrogen bond components, and hydrogen bond properties such as energies, distances and angles. The data of the docking studies strongly support the assumption that the antiepileptic and analgesic actions of the studied drugs can be at least in part related to the strength of their chemical interactions with hGAT1. In vivo experiments with tiagabine confirmed the involvement of hGAT1 in the regulation of the mechanical nociceptive threshold in neuropathic pain.
The gabapentinoid drugs gabapentin and pregabalin are key front-line therapies for various neuropathies of peripheral and central origin. Originally designed as analogs of GABA, the gabapentinoids bind to the α 2 δ-1 and α 2 δ-2 auxiliary subunits of calcium channels, though only the former has been implicated in the development of neuropathy in animal models. Transgenic approaches also identify α 2 δ-1 as key in mediating the analgesic effects of gabapentinoids, however the precise molecular mechanisms remain unclear. Here we review the current understanding of the pathophysiological role of the α 2 δ-1 subunit, the mechanisms of analgesic action of gabapentinoid drugs and implications for efficacy in the clinic. Despite widespread use, the number needed to treat for gabapentin and pregabalin averages from 3 to 8 across neuropathies. The failure to treat large numbers of patients adequately necessitates a novel approach to treatment selection. Stratifying patients by sensory profiles may imply common underlying mechanisms, and a greater understanding of these mechanisms could lead to more direct targeting of gabapentinoids.
The anticonvulsant pregabalin promotes neural regeneration in a mouse model of spinal cord injury (SCI). We have also previously observed that anticonvulsants improve motor outcomes following human SCI. The present study examined the optimal timing and type of anticonvulsants administered in a large, prospective, multi-center, cohort study in acute SCI. Mixed-effects regression techniques were used to model total motor scores at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months post injury. We found that early (not late) administration of anticonvulsants significantly improved motor recovery (6.25 points over 1 year). The beneficial effect of anticonvulsants remained significant after adjustment for differences in 1-month motor scores and injury characteristics. A review of a subset of patients revealed that gabapentinoids were the most frequently administrated anticonvulsant. Together with preclinical findings, intervention with anticonvulsants represents a potential pharmacological strategy to improve motor function after SCI.
Disorders of the somatosensory system such as neuropathic pain are common in people with chronic neurologic and musculoskeletal diseases, yet these conditions remain an underappreciated morbidity in veterinary patients. This is likely because assessment of neuropathic pain in people relies heavily on self-reporting, something our veterinary patients are not able to do. The development of neuropathic pain is a complex phenomenon, and concepts related to it are frequently not addressed in the standard veterinary medical curriculum such that veterinarians may not recognize this as a potential problem in patients. The goals of this review are to discuss basic concepts in the pathophysiology of neuropathic pain, provide definitions for common clinical terms used in association with the condition, and discuss pharmacological treatment options for dogs with neuropathic pain. The development of neuropathic pain involves key mechanisms such as ectopic afferent nerve activity, peripheral sensitization, central sensitization, impaired inhibitory modulation, and pathologic activation of microglia. Treatments aimed at reducing neuropathic pain are targeted at one or more of these mechanisms. Several drugs are commonly used in the veterinary clinical setting to treat neuropathic pain. These include gabapentin, pregabalin, amantadine, and amitriptyline. Proposed mechanisms of action for each drug, and known pharmacokinetic profiles in dogs are discussed. Strong evidence exists in the human literature for the utility of most of these treatments, but clinical veterinary-specific literature is currently limited. Future studies should focus on objective methods to document neuropathic pain and monitor response to therapy in veterinary patients.
Neuropathic pain, comprising a range of heterogeneous conditions, is often severe and difficult to manage, and this may result in a chronic condition that negatively affects the overall functioning and quality of life in patients. The pharmacotherapy of neuropathic pain is challenging and for many patients effective treatment is lacking; therefore, evidence-based recommendations are essential. Currently, there is general agreement on which drugs are appropriate for the first-line treatment of neuropathic pain, whereas debate continues regarding second- and third-line treatments. First-line drugs for neuropathic pain include antidepressants (tricyclic antidepressants and serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors) and anticonvulsants acting at calcium channels (pregabalin and gabapentin). Second- and third-line drugs for neuropathic pain include topical lidocaine and opioids. Although efficacious in the treatment of neuropathic pain, opioids are not considered to be a first choice because of adverse drug reactions and, more recently, because of concerns about abuse, diversion, and addiction. A clear understanding of the mechanism of action of currently available drugs is an essential step towards an effective clinical approach that aims to tailor therapies both to the specific neuropathic disease and to the needs of an individual patient. This review provides an overview of current drugs available for the treatment of neuropathic pain with an emphasis on their mechanism of action.