4.7 Article

Randomised clinical trial: pregabalin vs placebo for irritable bowel syndrome

期刊

ALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
卷 49, 期 4, 页码 389-397

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/apt.15077

关键词

-

资金

  1. Pfizer
  2. National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences [UL1 TR000135]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Pregabalin is a calcium channel alpha 2 delta ligand that modifies visceral hypersensitivity in IBS patients. Clinical data for pregabalin in IBS are lacking. Aim To test the efficacy of pregabalin on gastrointestinal symptoms in IBS patients. Methods A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was performed. Adults meeting IBS Rome III criteria with >= 3 pain attacks per month were randomised to pregabalin 225 mg vs placebo twice daily for 12 weeks. Questionnaires were completed weekly. The primary endpoint was average pain Bowel Symptom Scale (BSS) scores weeks 9-12. An intention-to-treat analysis of covariance evaluated treatment effects on quantitative endpoints, adjusting for age and gender. Adequate relief and change in pain score were assessed using a chi-squared test. Results Eighty-five patients were recruited and randomised. Sample characteristics include: mean age 39.4 (SD = 14.6); 73 (86%) female; 37 (44%) IBS-D, 29 (35%) IBS-M, 18 (21%) IBS-C. The pregabalin arm had lower average pain-BSS scores weeks 9-12 (25 vs 42, P = 0.008). Compared with placebo, the overall IBS BSS severity score was lower in the pregabalin arm (26 vs 42, P = 0.009). Differences were observed for the diarrhoea-BSS and bloating-BSS scores (P = 0.049 and 0.016, respectively). No differences between groups were seen for constipation-BSS scores. Adequate relief was not different between the two arms (46% vs 36%, P = 0.35). 63% pregabalin vs 45% placebo had a change in pain score >= 30 at week 12 from baseline (P = 0.10). Post-treatment IBS-QoL scores did not differ between groups. Conclusion This trial suggests that pregabalin may be beneficial for IBS abdominal pain, bloating and diarrhoea.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据