Mark Versavel

Pregabalin reduces pain and improves sleep and mood disturbances in patients with post-herpetic neuralgia: results of a randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trial

&NA; This study was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of pregabalin—a novel &agr;2‐&dgr; ligand with analgesic, anxiolytic, and anticonvulsant activity—for treating neuropathic pain in patients with post‐herpetic neuralgia (PHN). Two hundred and thirty‐eight patients were randomised into this multicentre, doubleblind, placebo‐controlled trial to receive 150 (n=81), 300 mg/day (n=76) pregabalin, or placebo (n=81) for 8 weeks. Among the exclusion criteria was failure to respond to previous treatment for PHN with gabapentin at doses ≥1200 mg/day. Endpoint mean pain scores were significantly reduced in patients receiving 150 or 300 mg/day pregabalin compared with placebo. Efficacy was observed as early as week 1 and was maintained throughout the study. Significantly more patients in both pregabalin groups (150 mg, 26%; 300 mg, 28%) were responders (≥50% decrease in mean pain score from baseline to endpoint) than in the placebo group (10%). Additionally, by week 1 and for the studys duration, 150 and 300 mg/day pregabalin significantly reduced weekly mean sleep interference scores. More pregabalin‐treated patients than placebo‐treated patients reported that they were ‘much improved’ or ‘very much improved’. Health‐related quality‐of‐life (HRQoL) measurements using the SF‐36 Health Survey demonstrated improvement in the mental health domain for both pregabalin dosages, and bodily pain and vitality domains were improved in the 300 mg/day group. The most frequent adverse events were dizziness, somnolence, peripheral oedema, headache, and dry mouth. Pregabalin efficaciously treated the neuropathic pain of PHN. Additionally, pregabalin was associated with decreased sleep interference and significant improvements in HRQoL measures.

Efficacy and tolerability of twice- daily pregabalin for treating pain and related sleep interference in postherpetic neuralgia : a 13-week, randomized trial

ABSTRACT Objective: This trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of pregabalin dosed twice daily (BID) for relief of neuro-pathic pain associated with postherpetic neuralgia (PHN). Research design and methods: The 13‐week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study randomized 370 patients with PHN to pregabalin (150, 300, or 600 mg/day BID) or placebo. Main outcome measures: Primary efficacy measure was endpoint mean pain score from daily pain diaries. Secondary efficacy measures included endpoint mean sleep-interference score from daily sleep diaries and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC). Safety evaluations included adverse events (AEs), physical and neurologic examinations, 12-lead ECG, vital signs, and laboratory testing. Results: Pregabalin provided significant, dose-proportional pain relief at endpoint: difference from placebo in mean pain score, 150 mg/day, –0.88, p = 0.0077; 300 mg/day, –1.07, p = 0.0016; 600 mg/day, –1.79, p = 0.0003. Weekly mean pain scores significantly improved as early as week 1. Sleep interference in all pregabalin groups was also significantly improved at endpoint, compared with placebo ( p < 0.001), beginning at week 1 ( p < 0.01). At study termination, patients in the 150 (p = 0.02) and 600 mg/day (p = 0.003) groups were more likely to report global improvement than were those in the placebo group. Most AEs were mild or moderate. Among pregabalin-treated patients, 13.5% withdrew due to AEs, most commonly for dizziness (16 patients, 5.8%), somnolence (8, 2.9%), or ataxia (7, 2.5%). Conclusions: Pregabalin, dosed BID, reduced neuropathic pain associated with PHN and was well tolerated. It also reduced the extent to which pain interfered with sleep. Pregabalins effects were seen as early as week 1 and were sustained throughout the 13‐week study.

Ziprasidone plus a mood stabilizer in subjects with bipolar I disorder: a 6-month, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ziprasidone adjunctive to a mood stabilizer for the maintenance treatment of bipolar mania. METHOD Subjects with DSM-IV bipolar I disorder with a Mania Rating Scale score > or = 14 were enrolled. Subjects achieving > or = 8 consecutive weeks of stability with open-label ziprasidone (80-160 mg/d) and lithium or valproate (period 1) were randomly assigned in the 6-month, double-blind maintenance period (period 2) to ziprasidone plus mood stabilizer or placebo plus mood stabilizer. The primary and key secondary end points were the time to intervention for a mood episode and time to discontinuation for any reason, respectively. Inferential analysis was performed using a Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimator (log-rank test). The study was conducted from December 2005 to May 2008. RESULTS A total of 127 and 113 subjects were randomly assigned to ziprasidone and placebo, respectively. Intervention for a mood episode was required in 19.7% and 32.4% of ziprasidone and placebo subjects, respectively. The time to intervention for a mood episode was significantly longer for ziprasidone than placebo (P = .0104). The median time to intervention for a mood episode among those requiring such an intervention (n = 61) was 43.0 days for ziprasidone versus 26.5 days for placebo. The time to discontinuation for any reason was significantly longer for ziprasidone (P = .0047). Adjunctive ziprasidone treatment was well tolerated. Among treatment-emergent adverse events occurring in > or = 5% of subjects in either treatment group during period 2, only tremor occurred more frequently in the ziprasidone versus placebo group (6.3% vs 3.6%). CONCLUSIONS Ziprasidone is an effective, safe, and well-tolerated adjunctive treatment with a mood stabilizer for long-term maintenance treatment of bipolar mania. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00280566.

Tolerability of oral ziprasidone in children and adolescents with bipolar mania, schizophrenia, or schizoaffective disorder.

OBJECTIVE This study characterizes the tolerability of ziprasidone in children and adolescents with bipolar mania, schizophrenia, or schizoaffective disorder. METHOD Sixty-three subjects (aged 10-17 years) entered an open-label study consisting of a 3-week fixed-dose period (Period 1) and a subsequent 24-week flexible-dose period (Period 2). In Period 1, subjects received ziprasidone 80 or 160 mg/d in two divided doses, titrated over 10 days. In Period 2, subjects received flexible doses (20-160 mg/d). Tolerability was evaluated using movement rating scales, laboratory tests, and electrocardiograms. Clinical response was assessed using the Young Mania Rating Scale, the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale-Anchored Version, and the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity scale. RESULTS Adverse events (AEs) occurred mostly during dose titration and in the high-dose (160 mg/d) group. The most common AEs during Period 1 were sedation (32%), somnolence (30%), and nausea (25%) and during Period 2 were sedation (30%), somnolence (30%), and headache (25%). The incidence of movement disorder AEs was 22% and 16% during Periods 1 and 2, respectively. Six percent of study participants discontinued study participation due to AEs during Period 1 and 20% discontinued in Period 2. Thirty-three percent of subjects gained >or=7% of their baseline weight. No Fridericia-corrected QT (QTcF) intervals of >450 ms were observed during Period 1 and only one occurred during Period 2. No QTcF increase >or=60 ms from baseline was observed. Symptom reductions were observed in all patient groups. CONCLUSIONS No unexpected tolerability findings were observed in this prospective trial of ziprasidone in children and adolescents with bipolar mania, schizophrenia, or schizoaffective disorder. On the basis of the results, a starting dose of 20 mg/d titrated to between 80 and 160 mg/d over 1-2 weeks appears optimal for most patients.

Patient phenotyping in clinical trials of chronic pain treatments: IMMPACT recommendations.

Abstract There is tremendous interpatient variability in the response to analgesic therapy (even for efficacious treatments), which can be the source of great frustration in clinical practice. This has led to calls for “precision medicine” or personalized pain therapeutics (ie, empirically based algorithms that determine the optimal treatments, or treatment combinations, for individual patients) that would presumably improve both the clinical care of patients with pain and the success rates for putative analgesic drugs in phase 2 and 3 clinical trials. However, before implementing this approach, the characteristics of individual patients or subgroups of patients that increase or decrease the response to a specific treatment need to be identified. The challenge is to identify the measurable phenotypic characteristics of patients that are most predictive of individual variation in analgesic treatment outcomes, and the measurement tools that are best suited to evaluate these characteristics. In this article, we present evidence on the most promising of these phenotypic characteristics for use in future research, including psychosocial factors, symptom characteristics, sleep patterns, responses to noxious stimulation, endogenous pain-modulatory processes, and response to pharmacologic challenge. We provide evidence-based recommendations for core phenotyping domains and recommend measures of each domain.

Pain intensity rating training: results from an exploratory study of the ACTTION PROTECCT system.

Abstract Clinical trial participants often require additional instruction to prevent idiosyncratic interpretations regarding completion of patient-reported outcomes. The Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) public–private partnership developed a training system with specific, standardized guidance regarding daily average pain intensity ratings. A 3-week exploratory study among participants with low-back pain, osteoarthritis of the knee or hip, and painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy was conducted, randomly assigning participants to 1 of 3 groups: training with human pain assessment (T+); training with automated pain assessment (T); or no training with automated pain assessment (C). Although most measures of validity and reliability did not reveal significant differences between groups, some benefit was observed in discriminant validity, amount of missing data, and ranking order of least, worst, and average pain intensity ratings for participants in Group T+ compared with the other groups. Prediction of greater reliability in average pain intensity ratings in Group T+ compared with the other groups was not supported, which might indicate that training produces ratings that reflect the reality of temporal pain fluctuations. Results of this novel study suggest the need to test the training system in a prospective analgesic treatment trial.

Psychosocial Functioning and Health-Related Quality of Life in Children and Adolescents Treated with Open-Label Ziprasidone for Bipolar Mania, Schizophrenia, or Schizoaffective Disorder

OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to examine global functioning, health-related quality of life (HRQOL), and clinical outcome in children and adolescents with bipolar I disorder, schizophrenia, or schizoaffective disorder following ziprasidone treatment. METHODS Sixty-three subjects (aged 10-17 years) received open-label ziprasidone, titrated from 10 to 40 mg twice a day (b.i.d.) (low-dose group) or from 20 to 80 mg b.i.d. (high-dose group); fixed doses were used until week 3, followed by flexible doses for 6 months. The Childrens Global Assessment Scale (CGAS) characterized functional impairment at baseline and following treatment. The Child Health Questionnaire (CHQ) assessed HRQOL at baseline. RESULTS Baseline CHQ showed greater impairment in psychosocial functioning than in physical health. Baseline mean CGAS scores were substantially below normal (i.e., <70), indicating functional impairment. Improvement in CGAS scores occurred as early as the first week of treatment. The low correlations between both CHQ and CGAS and the efficacy measures at baseline indicate that these scales measure different constructs. Nevertheless, there was good correlation between improvements in the CGAS and changes in Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale-Anchored (BPRS-A) and Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) during ziprasidone treatment. CONCLUSION CHQ and CGAS scales may be useful together with standard efficacy measures for children and adolescents with these disorders.