4.7 Article

Pregabalin in fibromyalgia: meta-analysis of efficacy and safety from company clinical trial reports

Journal

RHEUMATOLOGY
Volume 49, Issue 4, Pages 706-715

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/kep432

Keywords

Fibromyalgia; Pregabalin; Clinical trial reports; Meta-analysis

Categories

Funding

  1. Pfizer, Inc
  2. Oxford Pain Relief Trust

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives. Meta-analysis of pregabalin trials in FM using company trial reports, which provide more detailed information about trials than published papers. FM is a common condition with a significant impact on quality of life. Methods. Reports of five high-quality randomized trials (3808 patients) of pregabalin in FM were obtained from Pfizer. Four trials (2754 patients) were of classical trial design and one was an enriched enrolment randomized withdrawal design. Outcomes for meta-analysis from the four trials with classical design were pooled in an intention-to-treat analysis. Results. Significant benefit of pregabalin over placebo was seen for a variety of outcomes including mean pain and sleep scores, the proportion of patients achieving at least 50% pain relief and most of the individual domains of short-form 36. Only a minority of patients achieve moderate or substantial pain relief. The proportions of patients with any adverse event, somnolence or dizziness were also significantly greater with pregabalin than with placebo. There was no difference with regard to serious adverse events. A dose-response relationship was apparent for at least 50% pain relief and for adverse event outcomes. Conclusions. Pregabalin is effective in treating FM and is relatively safe. The size of therapeutic effect is similar to that with other recent interventions such as duloxetine and the combination of tramadol and paracetamol. Enriched enrolment randomized withdrawal design gives similar results to classical trial designs in FM.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available