4.7 Article

Topiramate vs placebo in painful diabetic neuropathy - Analgesic and metabolic effects

Journal

NEUROLOGY
Volume 63, Issue 5, Pages 865-873

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/01.WNL.0000137341.89781.14

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Using identical methods, three simultaneous placebo-controlled trials of topiramate for painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) did not reach significance. This independent yet concurrent placebo-controlled trial used different methods to assess topiramate efficacy and tolerability in PDN. Methods: This 12-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial included 323 subjects with PDN and pain visual analog (PVA) score of at least 40 on a scale from 0 ( no pain) to 100 ( worst possible pain). Topiramate (n = 214) or placebo ( n = 109) was titrated to 400 mg daily or maximum tolerated dose. Short-acting rescue analgesics were permitted only during the first 6 weeks. Results: Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups except for mean body weight ( topiramate, 101.4 kg; placebo, 95.7 kg; p = 0.028). Twelve weeks of topiramate treatment reduced PVA scale score ( from 68.0 to 46.2 mm) more effectively than placebo ( from 69.1 to 54.0 mm; p = 0.038). Fifty percent of topiramate-treated subjects and 34% of placebo-treated subjects responded to treatment, defined as > 30% reduction in PVA scale score ( p = 0.004). Topiramate monotherapy also reduced worst pain intensity ( p = 0.003 vs placebo) and sleep disruption ( p = 0.020 vs placebo). Diarrhea, loss of appetite, and somnolence were the most commonly reported adverse events in the topiramate group. Topiramate reduced body weight ( - 2.6 vs + 0.2 kg for placebo; p < 0.001) without disrupting glycemic control. Conclusions: Topiramate monotherapy reduced pain and body weight more effectively than placebo in patients with painful diabetic neuropathy.

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