4.6 Article

The efficacy and safety of pregabalin in the treatment of neuropathic pain associated with chronic lumbosacral radiculopathy

Journal

PAIN
Volume 150, Issue 3, Pages 420-427

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2010.04.013

Keywords

Pregabalin; Lumbosacral radiculopathy; Neuropathic pain; Clinical trial

Funding

  1. Pfizer Inc.
  2. Genzyme
  3. Grunenthal
  4. Astellas
  5. Lilly/Boehringer
  6. UCB/Schwarz
  7. Janssen-Cilag
  8. Mundipharma
  9. Organon
  10. Hexal
  11. MSD

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We evaluated the efficacy of pregabalin in patients with chronic lumbosacral radiculopathy. This randomized, controlled, withdrawal trial included five phases: screening (4-18 days); run-in (4-10 days) to screen out placebo responders; single-blind (28 days) to identify pregabalin responders; double-blind to randomize responders to pregabalin or placebo (35 days); and final study medication taper (7 days). The primary endpoint was time to loss of response (LOR) during the double-blind phase (>= 1-point increase in pain, discontinuation, or rescue-medication use). In the single-blind phase, 58% of patients had >= 30% pain reduction. In the double-blind phase, pregabalin (n = 110) and placebo (n = 107) groups did not differ significantly in time to LOR. Adverse events caused the discontinuation of 9.9% and 5.6% of pregabalin-treated and placebo-treated patients, respectively. Most patients with chronic lumbosacral radiculopathy responded to pregabalin therapy; however, time to LOR did not significantly differ between pregabalin and placebo. Considering the results of all phases of the study, it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions from it, suggesting a need for further work to understand the clinical potential of pregabalin treatment for lumbosacral radiculopathy. (C) 2010 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available