4.6 Article

Efficacy of the Na(v)1.7 blocker PF-05089771 in a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical study in subjects with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy

Journal

PAIN
Volume 159, Issue 8, Pages 1465-1476

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001227

Keywords

Painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy; Neuropathic pain; Voltage-gated sodium channel Na(v)1.7; PF-05089771; Clinical trial; Parallel group design

Funding

  1. Pfizer

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The effect of PF-05089771, a selective, peripherally restricted Na(v)1.7 sodium channel blocker on pain due to diabetic peripheral neuropathy was investigated in a randomised, placebo and active-controlled parallel group clinical trial (NCT02215252). A 1-week placebo-run in the period was followed by a 4-week treatment period and a 1-week placebo run-out/taper-down period. Single-blind placebo was administered throughout run-in and run-out periods. Subjects were randomised to receive either PF-05089771 150 mg twice daily, pregabalin 150 mg twice daily, or placebo during the 4-week treatment period. One hundred thirty-five subjects were randomised. The primary endpoint was the average pain score derived from subjects' Numerical Rating Scale scores over the past 7 days of week 4 of the double-blind treatment period. Predefined efficacy criteria for the trial were the effect of PF-05089771 being > 0.5 units better than placebo at interim analysis after completion of the first part of the study. Although a trend for a reduction in the weekly average pain score in the PF-05089771 treatment group was observed, this was not statistically significant when compared with placebo at week 4, with a mean posterior difference of -0.41 (90% credible interval: -1.00 to 0.17). The effect of PF-05089771 was smaller than that seen with pregabalin, which was statistically significant when compared with placebo at week 4, with a mean posterior difference of -0.53 (90% credible interval: -0.91 to -0.20). As predefined efficacy criteria were not met, the study did not proceed to the second part. PF-05089771 was well tolerated. Possible reasons for the modest efficacy observed with PF-05089771 are discussed.

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