Effectiveness of oral clonidine and gabapentin on peripheral neuropathy in diabetic patients in southwestern Iran: a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral neuropathy is not only the most prevalent consequence of diabetes but also the main reason for foot ulceration, disability, and amputation. Therefore, the current study aims to determine the effectiveness of oral clonidine and gabapentin on peripheral neuropathy in diabetic patients. METHODS: This 12-week, randomized, and parallel-group trial was conducted to compare the efficacy of oral clonidine and gabapentin with gabapentin alone in diabetic patients in southwest Iran during the first half of 2021. Thirty patients with type 2 diabetes with peripheral neuropathy as assessed by a visual analog scale (VAS) and divided into two groups of 15 patients, treated for up to three months. The data were analyzed using SPSS-21 software. In order to report the results, descriptive indices, independent t-test, one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and analysis of variance with repeated measures were used. RESULTS: The mean and standard deviation of the age of the participants in the clonidine + gabapentin group was equal to 50.20 ± 7.44, and in the gabapentin group was equal to 50.47 ± 7.57 (t = 0.10, P-value = 0.923). This research showed a significant difference between the clonidine + gabapentin group and with gabapentin group in terms of neuropathic pain and the severity of neuropathic pain (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: According to this research results, clonidine + gabapentin can reduce neuropathic pain and the severity of neuropathic pain in diabetic patients. Therefore, it is recommended that healthcare professionals with diabetes expertise prescribe these medications to reduce neuropathic pain and its severity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered in the Iranian Clinical Trials System with the ID (IRCT20211106052983N1) on 14/01/2022.

Is gabapentin effective and safe in the treatment of chronic pelvic pain in women: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Chronic pelvic pain (CPP) affects 2.1-24% of women, causing physical and psychological damage to women around the world. Based on the efficacy of gabapentin in the treatment of chronic pain, we conducted this study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of gabapentin in reducing pain in women with CPP. METHODS: Systematic searches were performed in the electronic databases of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane, and Clinicalkey databases. Studies focused on comparing the efficacy of gabapentin and placebo in the treatment of female CPP patients were included. RevMan 5.4 was used to analyze the results and risk of bias. Two investigators independently selected eligible studies and extracted related pain scores and side effects for meta-analysis. RESULTS: In total, 4 RCTs were enrolled in the meta-analysis, totaling 425 patients. Among patients receiving gabapentin, the average pain scores in 3 and 6 months were significantly lower than those in the placebo group(p < 0.00001). The results showed that there was no statistical difference between gabapentin and placebo in the reduction of pain scores from baseline(p = 0.41). The incidence of side effects in the gabapentin group was significantly higher than that in the placebo group (p < 0.00001). CONCLUSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated that for women with CPP, gabapentin was significantly different from placebo in average pain scores at 3 and 6 months. However, the two drugs did not differ in the reduction in pain scores from baseline. Gabapentin can bring more significant side effects, whether they are common side effects or serious side effects.

Gabapentin controlled substance status.

Gabapentin is approved to treat postherpetic neuralgia and epilepsy with partial-onset seizures. The large majority of gabapentin prescribing is off label. Gabapentin may be abused for euphoria, potentiating the high from opiates, reduction of alcohol cravings, a cocaine-like high, as well as sedation or sleep. Individuals at the highest risk for abusing gabapentin include those with opioid abuse, mental illness, or previous history of prescription drug abuse. States are now taking action to track gabapentin use through prescription monitoring programs, and some states have reclassified it as a Schedule V controlled substance. This commentary summarizes gabapentin's abuse potential, identifies state-level actions regarding gabapentin monitoring, and discusses possible clinical implications and ways to enhance patient safety when prescribing gabapentin.

Is gabapentin a safe and effective treatment for nonneuropathic pain?

ABSTRACT: A review of the recent literature found that compared with placebo or other pain medications, gabapentin did not significantly reduce nonneuropathic pain. The drug also is associated with an increased risk of adverse reactions, including somnolence, dizziness, and nausea. Given the lack of efficacy and risk of adverse reactions, gabapentin should not be used for nonneuropathic pain.

Phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with cough, sputum production or dyspnoea, and a reduction in lung function, quality of life, and life expectancy. Apart from smoking cessation, no other treatments that slow lung function decline are available. Roflumilast and cilomilast are oral phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE4) inhibitors proposed to reduce the airway inflammation and bronchoconstriction seen in COPD. This Cochrane Review was first published in 2011, and was updated in 2017 and 2020. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral PDE4 inhibitors for management of stable COPD. SEARCH METHODS: We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from the Cochrane Airways Trials Register (date of last search 9 March 2020). We found other trials at web-based clinical trials registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs if they compared oral PDE4 inhibitors with placebo in people with COPD. We allowed co-administration of standard COPD therapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Two independent review authors selected trials for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We resolved discrepancies by involving a third review author. We assessed our confidence in the evidence by using GRADE recommendations. Primary outcomes were change in lung function (minimally important difference (MID) = 100 mL) and quality of life (scale 0 to 100; higher score indicates more limitations). MAIN RESULTS: We found 42 RCTs that met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analyses for roflumilast (28 trials with 18,046 participants) or cilomilast (14 trials with 6457 participants) or tetomilast (1 trial with 84 participants), with a duration between six weeks and one year or longer. These trials included people across international study centres with moderate to very severe COPD (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) grades II to IV), with mean age of 64 years. We judged risks of selection bias, performance bias, and attrition bias as low overall amongst the 39 published and unpublished trials. Lung function Treatment with a PDE4 inhibitor was associated with a small, clinically insignificant improvement in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) over a mean of 40 weeks compared with placebo (mean difference (MD) 49.33 mL, 95% confidence interval (CI) 44.17 to 54.49; participants = 20,815; studies = 29; moderate-certainty evidence). Forced vital capacity (FVC) and peak expiratory flow (PEF) were also improved over 40 weeks (FVC: MD 86.98 mL, 95% CI 74.65 to 99.31; participants = 22,108; studies = 17; high-certainty evidence; PEF: MD 6.54 L/min, 95% CI 3.95 to 9.13; participants = 4245; studies = 6; low-certainty evidence). Quality of life Trials reported improvements in quality of life over a mean of 33 weeks (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) MD -1.06 units, 95% CI -1.68 to -0.43; participants = 7645 ; moderate-certainty evidence). Incidence of exacerbations Treatment with a PDE4 inhibitor was associated with a reduced likelihood of COPD exacerbation over a mean of 40 weeks (odds ratio (OR) 0.78, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.84; participants = 20,382; studies = 27; high-certainty evidence), that is, for every 100 people treated with PDE4 inhibitors, five more remained exacerbation-free during the study period compared with those given placebo (number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 20, 95% CI 16 to 27). No change in COPD-related symptoms nor in exercise tolerance was found. Adverse events More participants in the treatment groups experienced an adverse effect compared with control participants over a mean of 39 weeks (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.38; participants = 21,310; studies = 30; low-certainty evidence). Participants experienced a range of gastrointestinal symptoms such as diarrhoea, nausea, vomiting, or dyspepsia. Diarrhoea was more commonly reported with PDE4 inhibitor treatment (OR 3.20, 95% CI 2.74 to 3.50; participants = 20,623; studies = 29; high-certainty evidence), that is, for every 100 people treated with PDE4 inhibitors, seven more suffered from diarrhoea during the study period compared with those given placebo (number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 15, 95% CI 13 to 17). The likelihood of psychiatric adverse events was higher with roflumilast 500 µg than with placebo (OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.79 to 2.54; participants = 11,168; studies = 15 (COPD pool data); moderate-certainty evidence). Roflumilast in particular was associated with weight loss during the trial period and with an increase in insomnia and depressive mood symptoms. Participants treated with PDE4 inhibitors were more likely to withdraw from trial participation; on average, 14% in the treatment groups withdrew compared with 8% in the control groups. Mortality No effect on mortality was found (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.24; participants = 19,786; studies = 27; moderate-certainty evidence), although mortality was a rare event during these trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For this current update, five new studies from the 2020 search contributed to existing findings but made little impact on outcomes described in earlier versions of this review. PDE4 inhibitors offered a small benefit over placebo in improving lung function and reducing the likelihood of exacerbations in people with COPD; however, they had little impact on quality of life or on symptoms. Gastrointestinal adverse effects and weight loss were common, and the likelihood of psychiatric symptoms was higher, with roflumilast 500 µg. The findings of this review provide cautious support for the use of PDE4 inhibitors in COPD. In accordance with GOLD 2020 guidelines, they may have a place as add-on therapy for a subgroup of people with persistent symptoms or exacerbations despite optimal COPD management (e.g. people whose condition is not controlled by fixed-dose long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) and inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) combinations). More longer-term trials are needed to determine whether or not PDE4 inhibitors modify FEV1 decline, hospitalisation, or mortality in COPD.

Gabapentin for Chronic Neuropathic Pain.

Clinical Question: Is gabapentin associated with pain relief in people with chronic neuropathic pain? Bottom Line: Oral gabapentin (1200-3600 mg/d for 4-12 weeks) for patients with moderate or severe neuropathic pain from postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) or painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) is associated with pain reduction of at least 50% in 14% to 17% more patients than placebo.

On the addictive power of gabapentinoids: a mini-review.

The gabapentinoids gabapentin and pregabalin have been related to addiction citing pharmacovigilance data, some case presentations and increasing reports mainly from methadone maintenance treatment programs or emergency medicine. Most of these reports were based on patients with another current or previous substance use disorder (SUD). According to the ICD-10 dependence criteria, physical dependence (withdrawal symptoms, tolerance) was reported most frequently alongside regular use of gabapentinoids. Far less patients showed key symptoms of behavioral dependence (craving, loss of control, or addictive behavior). Through a literature review, we found 2 and 13 case reports about gabapentionoid-seeking behavior or craving for gabapentin and pregabalin, respectively. Those patients without a history of another SUD, but being behaviorally dependent on gabapentinoids, deemed more appropriate to reflect the true addictive power of these drugs. We found solely 4 such cases, all referring to pregabalin and none for gabapentin. Taking into account that gabapentinoids have become widely distributed and easily obtainable via the internet or black-markets, one would expect many more of these cases, if gabapentinoids had considerable addictive power. Moreover, we are not aware of any patient who sought detoxification treatment owing to the misuse of gabapentinoids. Unlike for traditional psychoactive drugs, there is only very scarce evidence for gabapentinoids to be misused in a long-term manner and to be rewarding and reinforcing in animal experiments. Further, we assessed the hazardous potential of gabapentin and pregabalin in relation to that of traditional substances of abuse. Altogether, we support the view that gabapentinoids are quite rarely addictive in the general population. In patients with a history of SUD, however, gabapentinoids (notably pregabalin) should avoided or, if thought to be beneficial, administered with caution by using a strict prescription and therapy monitoring.

Benefits and safety of gabapentinoids in chronic low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Chronic Low Back Pain (CLBP) is very common, with a lifetime prevalence between 51% and 80%. In majority, it is nonspecific in nature and multifactorial in etiology. Pregabalin (PG) and Gabapentin (GB) are gabapentinoids that have demonstrated benefit in neuropathic pain conditions. Despite no clear rationale, they are increasingly used for nonspecific CLBP. They necessitate prolonged use and are associated with adverse effects and increased cost. Recent guidelines from the National Health Service (NHS), England, expressed concerns on their off-label use, in addition to the risk of misuse. We aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of gabapentinoids in adult CLBP patients. METHODS: Electronic databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane were searched from their inception until December 20th, 2016. We included randomized control trials reporting the use of gabapentinoids for the treatment of CLBP of >3 months duration, in adult patients. Study selection and data extraction was performed independently by paired reviewers. Outcomes were guided by Initiative on Methods, Measurement and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials guidelines, with pain relief and safety as the primary outcomes. Meta-analyses were performed for outcomes reported in 3 or more studies. Outcomes were reported as mean differences (MDs) or risk ratios (RRs) with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and I2 in percentage representing the percentage variability in effect estimates that could be explained by heterogeneity. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) was used to assess the quality of evidence. RESULTS: Out of 1,385 citations, eight studies were included. Based on the interventions and comparators, studies were analyzed in 3 different groups. GB compared with placebo (3 studies, n = 185) showed minimal improvement of pain (MD = 0.22 units, 95% CI [-0.5 to 0.07] I2 = 0%; GRADE: very low). Three studies compared PG with other types of analgesic medication (n = 332) and showed greater improvement in the other analgesic group (MD = 0.42 units, 95% CI [0.20 to 0.64] I2 = 0; GRADE: very low). Studies using PG as an adjuvant (n = 423) were not pooled due to heterogeneity, but the largest of them showed no benefit of adding PG to tapentadol. There were no deaths or hospitalizations reported. Compared with placebo, the following adverse events were more commonly reported with GB: dizziness-(RR = 1.99, 95% CI [1.17 to 3.37], I2 = 49); fatigue (RR = 1.85, 95% CI [1.12 to 3.05], I2 = 0); difficulties with mentation (RR = 3.34, 95% CI [1.54 to 7.25], I2 = 0); and visual disturbances (RR = 5.72, 95% CI [1.94 to 16.91], I2 = 0). The number needed to harm with 95% CI for dizziness, fatigue, difficulties with mentation, and visual disturbances were 7 (4 to 30), 8 (4 to 44), 6 (4 to 15), and 6 (4 to 13) respectively. The GRADE evidence quality was noted to be very low for dizziness and fatigue, low for difficulties with mentation, and moderate for visual disturbances. Functional and emotional improvements were reported by few studies and showed no significant improvements. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Existing evidence on the use of gabapentinoids in CLBP is limited and demonstrates significant risk of adverse effects without any demonstrated benefit. Given the lack of efficacy, risks, and costs associated, the use of gabapentinoids for CLBP merits caution. There is need for large high-quality trials to more definitively inform this issue. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016034040.

An Atypical Withdrawal Syndrome in Neonates Prenatally Exposed to Gabapentin and Opioids.

We report a retrospective case series of 19 infants exposed to both opioids and gabapentin prenatally. We describe a unique behavioral phenotype in 15 of these infants and report a treatment strategy.

Gabapentin acutely increases the apnea-hypopnea index in older men: data from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

Although drugs with sedative properties may increase the risk of airway collapse during sleep, their acute effects on the apnea-hypopnea index in older adults are under-reported. We investigated the acute effects of gabapentin (GABA) on sleep breathing in older men without sleep apnea. A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled cross-over pilot study using a bedtime dose of gabapentin 300 mg was conducted in eight non-obese older men. Polysomnography measured the effects of the intervention. The apnea-hypopnea index was higher in the gabapentin arm than in the placebo arm (22.4 ± 6.1 versus 12.2 ± 4.3, P ≤ 0.05, d: 0.67), as was the oxygen desaturation index (20.6 ± 5.8 versus 10.8 ± 3.9, P ≤ 0.05, d: 0.68). The number needed to harm was four. A subset analysis demonstrated that differences in sleep respiratory parameters were present only during non-rapid eye movement sleep, as well as only in the supine position. No adverse events were reported. Hence, gabapentin worsened sleep breathing acutely compared with placebo. Long-term clinical trials are warranted to elucidate the clinical relevance of these findings for the safety profile of GABAergic agents.

Antiepileptic drugs: Impacts on human serum paraoxonase-1.

Serum paraoxonase (PON1) is a key enzyme related to high-density lipoprotein (HDL)-cholesterol particle. It can prevent the oxidation of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and HDL. The present article focuses on the in vitro inhibition role of some antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) such as valproic acid, gabapentin, primidone, phenytoin, and levetiracetam on human paraoxonase (hPON1). Therefore, PON1 was purified from human serum with a specific activity of 3976.36 EU/mg and 13.96% yield by using simple chromatographic methods. The AEDs were tested at various concentrations, which showed reduced in vitro hPON1 activity. IC50 values for gabapentin, valproic acid, primidone, phenytoin, and levetiracetam were found to be 0.35, 0.67, 0.87, 6.3, and 53.3 mM, respectively. Ki constants were 0.261 ± 0.027, 0.338 ± 0.313, 0.410 ± 0.184, 10.3 ± 0.001, and 43.01 ± 0.003 mM, respectively. Gabapentin exhibited effective inhibitory activity as compared with the other drugs. The inhibition mechanisms of all compounds were noncompetitive.

Law enforcement-derived data on gabapentin diversion and misuse, 2002-2015: diversion rates and qualitative research findings.

PURPOSE: Recent limited epidemiologic and case reports suggest that gabapentin is being misused, especially among prescription opioid misusers. However, no apparent studies have reported data from law enforcement on the diversion and misuse of gabapentin. METHODS: Case report data are drawn from a quarterly survey of prescription drug diversion completed by a national sample of law enforcement and regulatory agencies who engage in drug diversion investigations. Rates of gabapentin diversion per 100 000 population were calculated for each quarter from 2002 through 2015. Qualitative data are drawn from a brief questionnaire completed by a subsample of survey respondents and were organized and presented by theme. RESULTS: In total, 407 new cases of diverted gabapentin were reported during the time period, with diversion rates steadily increasing from zero cases in the first 2 quarters of 2002 to a high of 0.027 cases per 100 000 population in the fourth quarter of 2015. Qualitative data suggest that gabapentin is being misused in conjunction with prescription opioids and that gabapentin and heroin are being combined and consumed together. Law enforcement reporters found these drug use trends to be contributing to gabapentin diversion. CONCLUSIONS: The recent increase in gabapentin diversion appears to be related to the opioid epidemic, based on law enforcement descriptions of gabapentin being misused in combination with opioids. Yet epidemiological data related to this finding is limited and research conducted among gabapentin misusers is needed to understand this problem in more depth. Greater monitoring of gabapentin abuse and diversion appear warranted.

Pregabalin and heart failure: A population-based study.

PURPOSE: The anticonvulsant pregabalin is increasingly prescribed for pain, seizures, and psychiatric disorders. Although evidence suggests pregabalin can cause edema and heart failure, its cardiac safety profile in clinical practice is unknown. We sought to examine the risk of heart failure among older patients receiving pregabalin compared to those receiving gabapentin. METHODS: We conducted a population-based cohort study of Ontarians aged 66 and older with a history of seizure who received pregabalin or gabapentin between April 2013 and March 2014. We used propensity scores to match patients commencing pregabalin to those commencing gabapentin. The primary outcome was an emergency department visit or hospitalization for heart failure within 90 days. RESULTS: We studied 9855 patients who initiated pregabalin and an equal number treated with gabapentin. In the primary analysis, we found no difference in the risk of heart failure with pregabalin compared to gabapentin (1.2% versus 1.3%, hazard ratio of 0.77; 95% CI 0.58-1.03). Secondary analyses stratified for baseline history of heart failure yielded similar findings. CONCLUSION: In a large cohort of older patients with a seizure disorder, pregabalin was not associated with an increased risk of heart failure relative to gabapentin.

Effects of the Antiepileptic Drugs Phenytoin, Gabapentin, and Levetiracetam on Bone Strength, Bone Mass, and Bone Turnover in Rats.

Long-term treatment with antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) is accompanied by reduced bone mass that is associated with an increased risk of bone fractures. Although phenytoin has been reported to adversely influence bone metabolism, little is known pertaining to more recent AEDs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of gabapentin or levetiracetam on bone strength, bone mass, and bone turnover in rats. Male Sprague-Dawley rats were orally administered phenytoin (20 mg/kg), gabapentin (30 or 150 mg/kg), or levetiracetam (50 or 200 mg/kg) daily for 12 weeks. Bone histomorphometric analysis of the tibia was performed and femoral bone strength was evaluated using a three-point bending method. Bone mineral density (BMD) of the femur and tibia was measured using quantitative computed tomography. Administration of phenytoin significantly decreased bone strength and BMD, which was associated with enhanced bone resorption. In contrast, treatment with gabapentin (150 mg/kg) significantly decreased bone volume and increased trabecular separation, as shown by bone histomorphometric analysis. Moreover, the bone formation parameters, osteoid volume and mineralizing surface, decreased after gabapentin treatment, whereas the bone resorption parameters, osteoclast surface and number, increased. Levetiracetam treatment did not affect bone strength, bone mass, and bone turnover. Our data suggested that gabapentin induced the rarefaction of cancellous bone, which was associated with decreased bone formation and enhanced bone resorption, and may affect bone strength and BMD after chronic exposure. To prevent the risk of bone fractures, patients prescribed a long-term administration of gabapentin should be regularly monitored for changes in bone mass.

Gabapentin for fibromyalgia pain in adults.

BACKGROUND: This review replaces part of an earlier review that evaluated gabapentin for both neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia, now split into separate reviews for the two conditions. This review will consider pain in fibromyalgia only.Fibromyalgia is associated with widespread pain lasting longer than three months, and is frequently associated with symptoms such as poor sleep, fatigue, depression, and reduced quality of life. Fibromyalgia is more common in women.Gabapentin is an antiepileptic drug widely licensed for treatment of neuropathic pain. It is not licensed for the treatment of fibromyalgia, but is commonly used because fibromyalgia can respond to the same medicines as neuropathic pain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the analgesic efficacy of gabapentin for fibromyalgia pain in adults and the adverse events associated with its use in clinical trials. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE via Ovid and Embase via Ovid from inception to 24 May 2016. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and searched online clinical trial registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, double-blind trials of eight weeks' duration or longer for treating fibromyalgia pain in adults, comparing gabapentin with placebo or an active comparator. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent review authors extracted data and assessed trial quality and risk of bias. We planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and number needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods. We assessed the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and created a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS: Two studies tested gabapentin to treat fibromyalgia pain. One was identified in previous versions of the review and is included here. We identified another study as a conference abstract, with insufficient detail to determine eligibility for inclusion; it is awaiting assessment. The one included study of 150 participants was a 12-week, multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study using last-observation-carried-forward imputation for withdrawals. The maximum dose was 2400 mg daily. The overall risk of bias was low, except for attrition bias.At the end of the trial, the outcome of 50% reduction in pain over baseline was not reported. The outcome of 30% or greater reduction in pain over baseline was achieved by 38/75 participants (49%) with gabapentin compared with 23/75 (31%) with placebo (very low quality). A patient global impression of change any category of "better" was achieved by 68/75 (91%) with gabapentin and 35/75 (47%) with placebo (very low quality).Nineteen participants discontinued the study because of adverse events: 12 in the gabapentin group (16%) and 7 in the placebo group (9%) (very low quality). The number of serious adverse events were not reported, and no deaths were reported (very low quality). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We have only very low quality evidence and are very uncertain about estimates of benefit and harm because of a small amount of data from a single trial. There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the suggestion that gabapentin reduces pain in fibromyalgia.

Phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitors for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with cough, sputum production or dyspnoea and a reduction in lung function, quality of life and life expectancy. Apart from smoking cessation, there are no other treatments that slow lung function decline. Roflumilast and cilomilast are oral phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitors proposed to reduce the airway inflammation and bronchoconstriction seen in COPD. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2011 and updated in 2013. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral PDE4 inhibitors in the management of stable COPD. SEARCH METHODS: We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from the Cochrane Airways Trials Register (date of last search October 2016). We found other trials from web-based clinical trials registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs if they compared oral PDE4 inhibitors with placebo in people with COPD. We allowed co-administration of standard COPD therapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One review author extracted data and a second review author checked the data. We reported pooled data in Review Manager as mean differences (MD), standardised mean differences (SMD) or odds ratios (OR). We converted the odds ratios into absolute treatment effects in a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-four separate RCTs studying roflumilast (20 trials with 17,627 participants) or cilomilast (14 trials with 6457 participants) met the inclusion criteria, with a duration of between six weeks and one year. These included people across international study centres with moderate to very severe COPD (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) grades II-IV), with a mean age of 64 years.We considered that the methodological quality of the 34 published and unpublished trials was acceptable overall. Treatment with a PDE4 inhibitor was associated with a significant improvement in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) over the trial period compared with placebo (MD 51.53 mL, 95% confidence interval (CI) 43.17 to 59.90, 27 trials with 20,585 participants, moderate-quality evidence due to moderate levels of heterogeneity and risk of reporting bias). There were small improvements in quality of life (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), MD -1.06 units, 95% CI -1.68 to -0.43, 11 trials with 7645 participants, moderate-quality evidence due to moderate levels of heterogeneity and risk of reporting bias) and COPD-related symptoms, but no significant change in exercise tolerance. Treatment with a PDE4 inhibitor was associated with a reduced likelihood of COPD exacerbation (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.83; 23 trials with 19,948 participants, high-quality evidence). For every 100 people treated with PDE4 inhibitors, five more remained exacerbation-free during the study period compared with placebo (number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 20, 95% CI 16 to 26). More participants in the treatment groups experienced non-serious adverse events compared with controls, particularly a range of gastrointestinal symptoms such as diarrhoea, nausea, vomiting or dyspepsia. For every 100 people treated with PDE4 inhibitors, seven more suffered from diarrhoea during the study period compared with placebo (number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 15, 95% CI 13 to 17). Roflumilast in particular was associated with weight loss during the trial period and an increase in insomnia and depressive mood symptoms. There was no significant effect of treatment on non-fatal serious adverse events (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.07) or mortality (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.23), although mortality was a rare event during the trials. Participants treated with PDE4 inhibitors were more likely to withdraw from the trials because of adverse effects; on average 14% in the treatment groups withdrew compared with 8% in the control groups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In people with COPD, PDE4 inhibitors offered benefit over placebo in improving lung function and reducing the likelihood of exacerbations; however, they had little impact on quality of life or symptoms. Gastrointestinal adverse effects and weight loss were common, and safety data submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have raised concerns over psychiatric adverse events with roflumilast. The findings of this review give cautious support to the use of PDE4 inhibitors in COPD. They may be best used as add-on therapy in a subgroup of people with persistent symptoms or exacerbations despite optimal COPD management. This is in accordance with the GOLD 2017 guidelines. Longer-term trials are needed to determine whether or not PDE4 inhibitors modify FEV1 decline, hospitalisation or mortality in COPD.

Gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.

BACKGROUND: Gabapentin is commonly used to treat neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage). This review updates a review published in 2014, and previous reviews published in 2011, 2005 and 2000. OBJECTIVES: To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of gabapentin in chronic neuropathic pain in adults. SEARCH METHODS: For this update we searched CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase for randomised controlled trials from January 2014 to January 2017. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and online clinical trials registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised, double-blind trials of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing gabapentin (any route of administration) with placebo or another active treatment for neuropathic pain, with participant-reported pain assessment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality and potential bias. Primary outcomes were participants with substantial pain relief (at least 50% pain relief over baseline or very much improved on Patient Global Impression of Change scale (PGIC)), or moderate pain relief (at least 30% pain relief over baseline or much or very much improved on PGIC). We performed a pooled analysis for any substantial or moderate benefit. Where pooled analysis was possible, we used dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) or harmful outcome (NNH). We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created 'Summary of findings' tables. MAIN RESULTS: We included four new studies (530 participants), and excluded three previously included studies (126 participants). In all, 37 studies provided information on 5914 participants. Most studies used oral gabapentin or gabapentin encarbil at doses of 1200 mg or more daily in different neuropathic pain conditions, predominantly postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy. Study duration was typically four to 12 weeks. Not all studies reported important outcomes of interest. High risk of bias occurred mainly due to small size (especially in cross-over studies), and handling of data after study withdrawal.In postherpetic neuralgia, more participants (32%) had substantial benefit (at least 50% pain relief or PGIC very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (17%) (RR 1.8 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.1); NNT 6.7 (5.4 to 8.7); 8 studies, 2260 participants, moderate-quality evidence). More participants (46%) had moderate benefit (at least 30% pain relief or PGIC much or very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (25%) (RR 1.8 (95% CI 1.6 to 2.0); NNT 4.8 (4.1 to 6.0); 8 studies, 2260 participants, moderate-quality evidence).In painful diabetic neuropathy, more participants (38%) had substantial benefit (at least 50% pain relief or PGIC very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (21%) (RR 1.9 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.3); NNT 5.9 (4.6 to 8.3); 6 studies, 1277 participants, moderate-quality evidence). More participants (52%) had moderate benefit (at least 30% pain relief or PGIC much or very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (37%) (RR 1.4 (95% CI 1.3 to 1.6); NNT 6.6 (4.9 to 9.9); 7 studies, 1439 participants, moderate-quality evidence).For all conditions combined, adverse event withdrawals were more common with gabapentin (11%) than with placebo (8.2%) (RR 1.4 (95% CI 1.1 to 1.7); NNH 30 (20 to 65); 22 studies, 4346 participants, high-quality evidence). Serious adverse events were no more common with gabapentin (3.2%) than with placebo (2.8%) (RR 1.2 (95% CI 0.8 to 1.7); 19 studies, 3948 participants, moderate-quality evidence); there were eight deaths (very low-quality evidence). Participants experiencing at least one adverse event were more common with gabapentin (63%) than with placebo (49%) (RR 1.3 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.4); NNH 7.5 (6.1 to 9.6); 18 studies, 4279 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Individual adverse events occurred significantly more often with gabapentin. Participants taking gabapentin experienced dizziness (19%), somnolence (14%), peripheral oedema (7%), and gait disturbance (14%). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Gabapentin at doses of 1800 mg to 3600 mg daily (1200 mg to 3600 mg gabapentin encarbil) can provide good levels of pain relief to some people with postherpetic neuralgia and peripheral diabetic neuropathy. Evidence for other types of neuropathic pain is very limited. The outcome of at least 50% pain intensity reduction is regarded as a useful outcome of treatment by patients, and the achievement of this degree of pain relief is associated with important beneficial effects on sleep interference, fatigue, and depression, as well as quality of life, function, and work. Around 3 or 4 out of 10 participants achieved this degree of pain relief with gabapentin, compared with 1 or 2 out of 10 for placebo. Over half of those treated with gabapentin will not have worthwhile pain relief but may experience adverse events. Conclusions have not changed since the previous update of this review.

Antidepressants for chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Pain is a common feature of childhood and adolescence around the world, and for many young people, that pain is chronic. The World Health Organization guidelines for pharmacological treatments for children's persisting pain acknowledge that pain in children is a major public health concern of high significance in most parts of the world. While in the past pain was largely dismissed and was frequently left untreated, views on children's pain have changed over time and relief of pain is now seen as important.We designed a suite of seven reviews on chronic non-cancer pain and cancer pain (looking at antidepressants, antiepileptic drugs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, and paracetamol) in order to review the evidence for children's pain utilising pharmacological interventions.As the leading cause of morbidity in the world today, chronic disease (and its associated pain) is a major health concern. Chronic pain (that is pain lasting three months or longer) can arise in the paediatric population in a variety of pathophysiological classifications (nociceptive, neuropathic, or idiopathic) from genetic conditions, nerve damage pain, chronic musculoskeletal pain, and chronic abdominal pain, as well as for other unknown reasons.Antidepressants have been used in adults for pain relief and pain management since the 1970s. The clinical impression from extended use over many years is that antidepressants are useful for some neuropathic pain symptoms, and that effects on pain relief are divorced and different from effects on depression; for example, the effects of tricyclic antidepressants on pain may occur at different, and often lower, doses than those on depression. Amitriptyline is one of the most commonly used drugs for treating neuropathic pain in the UK. OBJECTIVES: To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of antidepressants used to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents aged between birth and 17 years, in any setting. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE via Ovid, and Embase via Ovid from inception to 6 September 2016. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and searched online clinical trial registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials, with or without blinding, of any dose and any route, treating chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents, comparing any antidepressant with placebo or an active comparator. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility. We planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and number needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created three 'Summary of findings' tables. MAIN RESULTS: We included four studies with a total of 272 participants (6 to 18 years of age) who had either chronic neuropathic pain, complex regional pain syndrome type 1, irritable bowel syndrome, functional abdominal pain, or functional dyspepsia. All of the studies were small. One study investigated amitriptyline versus gabapentin (34 participants), two studies investigated amitriptyline versus placebo (123 participants), and one study investigated citalopram versus placebo (115 participants). Due to a lack of available data we were unable to complete any quantitative analysis.Risk of bias for the four included studies varied, due to issues with randomisation and allocation concealment (low to unclear risk); blinding of participants, personnel, and outcome assessors (low to unclear risk); reporting of results (low to unclear risk); and size of the study populations (high risk). We judged the remaining domains, attrition and other potential sources of bias, as low risk of bias. Primary outcomesNo studies reported our primary outcomes of participant-reported pain relief of 30% or greater or 50% or greater (very low-quality evidence).No studies reported on Patient Global Impression of Change (very low-quality evidence).We rated the overall quality of the evidence (GRADE rating) as very low. We downgraded the quality of the evidence by three levels to very low because there was no evidence to support or refute. Secondary outcomesAll studies measured adverse events, with very few reported (11 out of 272 participants). All but one adverse event occurred in the active treatment groups (amitriptyline, citalopram, and gabapentin). Adverse events in all studies, across active treatment and comparator groups, were considered to be a mild reaction, such as nausea, dizziness, drowsiness, tiredness, and abdominal discomfort (very low-quality evidence).There were also very few withdrawals due to adverse events, again all but one from the active treatment groups (very low-quality evidence).No serious adverse events were reported across any of the studies (very low-quality evidence).There were few or no data for our remaining secondary outcomes (very low-quality evidence).We rated the overall quality of the evidence (GRADE rating) for these secondary outcomes as very low. We downgraded the quality of the evidence by three levels to very low due to too few data and the fact that the number of events was too small to be meaningful. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We identified only a small number of studies with small numbers of participants and insufficient data for analysis.As we could undertake no meta-analysis, we are unable to comment about efficacy or harm from the use of antidepressants to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents. Similarly, we cannot comment on our remaining secondary outcomes: Carer Global Impression of Change; requirement for rescue analgesia; sleep duration and quality; acceptability of treatment; physical functioning; and quality of life.There is evidence from adult randomised controlled trials that some antidepressants, such as amitriptyline, can provide some pain relief in certain chronic non-cancer pain conditions.There is no evidence from randomised controlled trials to support or refute the use of antidepressants to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children or adolescents.

Antiepileptic drugs for chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Pain is a common feature of childhood and adolescence around the world, and for many young people, that pain is chronic. The World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for pharmacological treatments for children's persisting pain acknowledge that pain in children is a major public health concern of high significance in most parts of the world. While in the past, pain was largely dismissed and was frequently left untreated, views on children's pain have changed over time, and relief of pain is now seen as importantWe designed a suite of seven reviews on chronic non-cancer pain and cancer pain (looking at antidepressants, antiepileptic drugs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, and paracetamol) in order to review the evidence for children's pain utilising pharmacological interventions in children and adolescents.As the leading cause of morbidity in the world today, chronic disease (and its associated pain) is a major health concern. Chronic pain (that is pain lasting three months or longer) can occur in the paediatric population in a variety of pathophysiological classifications (nociceptive, neuropathic, or idiopathic) relating to genetic conditions, nerve damage pain, chronic musculoskeletal pain, and chronic abdominal pain, and for other unknown reasons.Antiepileptic (anticonvulsant) drugs, which were originally developed to treat convulsions in people with epilepsy, have in recent years been used to provide pain relief in adults for many chronic painful conditions and are now recommended for the treatment of chronic pain in the WHO list of essential medicines. Known side effects of antiepileptic drugs range from sweating, headache, elevated temperature, nausea, and abdominal pain to more serious effects including mental or motor function impairment. OBJECTIVES: To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of antiepileptic drugs used to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents aged between birth and 17 years, in any setting. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE via Ovid, and Embase via Ovid from inception to 6 September 2016. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews as well as online clinical trial registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials, with or without blinding, by any route, treating chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents, comparing any antiepileptic drug with placebo or an active comparator. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility. We planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and number needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods if data were available. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created two 'Summary of findings' tables. MAIN RESULTS: We included two studies with a total of 141 participants (aged 7 to 18 years) with chronic neuropathic pain, complex regional pain syndrome type 1 (CRPS-I), or fibromyalgia. One study investigated pregabalin versus placebo in participants with fibromyalgia (107 participants), and the other study investigated gabapentin versus amitriptyline in participants with CRPS-I or neuropathic pain (34 participants). We were unable to perform any quantitative analysis.Risk of bias for the two included studies varied, due to issues with randomisation (low to unclear risk), blinding of outcome assessors (low to unclear risk), reporting bias (low to unclear risk), the size of the study populations (high risk), and industry funding in the 'other' domain (low to unclear risk). We judged the remaining domains of sequence generation, blinding of participants and personnel, and attrition as low risk of bias. Primary outcomesOne study (gabapentin 900 mg/day versus amitriptyline 10 mg/day, 34 participants, for 6 weeks) did not report our primary outcomes (very low-quality evidence).The second study (pregabalin 75 to 450 mg/day versus placebo 75 to 450 mg/day, 107 participants, for 15 weeks) reported no significant change in pain scores for pain relief of 30% or greater between pregabalin 18/54 (33.3%), and placebo 16/51 (31.4%), P = 0.83 (very low-quality evidence). This study also reported Patient Global Impression of Change, with the percentage of participants feeling "much or very much improved" with pregabalin 53.1%, and placebo 29.5% (very low-quality evidence).We downgraded the evidence by three levels to very low for one of two reasons: due to the fact that there was no evidence to support or refute the use of the intervention, or that there were too few data and the number of events was too small to be meaningful. Secondary outcomesIn one small study, adverse events were uncommon: gabapentin 2 participants (2 adverse events); amitriptyline 1 participant (1 adverse event) (6-week trial). The second study reported a higher number of adverse events: pregabalin 38 participants (167 adverse events); placebo 34 participants (132 adverse events) (15-week trial) (very low-quality evidence).Withdrawals due to adverse events were infrequent in both studies: pregabalin (4 participants), placebo (4 participants), gabapentin (2 participants), and amitriptyline (1 participant) (very low-quality evidence).Serious adverse events were reported in both studies. One study reported only one serious adverse event (cholelithiasis and major depression resulting in hospitalisation in the pregabalin group) and the other study reported no serious adverse events (very low-quality evidence).There were few or no data for our remaining secondary outcomes (very low-quality evidence).We downgraded the evidence by three levels to very low due to too few data and the fact that the number of events was too small to be meaningful. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review identified only two small studies, with insufficient data for analysis.As we could undertake no meta-analysis, we were unable to comment about efficacy or harm from the use of antiepileptic drugs to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents. Similarly, we could not comment on our remaining secondary outcomes: Carer Global Impression of Change; requirement for rescue analgesia; sleep duration and quality; acceptability of treatment; physical functioning; and quality of life.We know from adult randomised controlled trials that some antiepileptics, such as gabapentin and pregabalin, can be effective in certain chronic pain conditions.We found no evidence to support or refute the use of antiepileptic drugs to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents.